►
From YouTube: 2/16/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
All
right,
I
show
1pm
on
my
clock
and
therefore
we
are
ready
to
open
today's
judiciary
meeting
on
tuesday
february
16th.
Previously
we
had
two
bills:
agendas
for
today,
one
of
them
has
been
moved
to
next
week.
Today
we
will
only
be
hearing
sb42.
A
I
would
like
to
remind
anybody
and
everybody
who
is
watching
from
afar
that
they
can
submit
their
written
comments
online
via
email
to
my
committee
secretary
or
my
committee
manager.
You
can
also
fill
out
the
online
poll
and,
if
you
want
to
call
in
you
have
to
click
on
the
button
that
says,
participate
next
to
the
agenda
item
and
then
you
can
register
with
your
name
and
your
email
and
your
phone
number
you'll
receive
a
phone
number
to
call
in.
A
I
see
that
we
already
have
our
presenters
here
today,
but
before
we
get
to
the
bill,
I
will
be
asking
our
esteemed
secretary
to
call
the
role.
A
C
D
A
And
with
that,
we
are
ready
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
sb
42.
I
understand
that
mr
john
mccormick
is
with
us
from
the
nevada
supreme
court
to
present
the
bill.
E
E
This
bill
transfers
the
responsibility
for
printing
distributing
nevada
reports,
so
the
recorded
decisions
of
the
supreme
court
advance
opinions
of
both
the
supreme
court
and
the
court
of
appeals,
as
well
as
court
rules
from
the
legislative
council
bureau
to
the
supreme
court.
E
E
Currently,
we
print
750
with
state
printing
and
end
up
storing
a
lot
of
those
in
their
warehouse,
so
just
taking
up
space
this
fiscal
year,
the
the
total
for
that
printing
cost
is
twenty,
eight
thousand
eight
hundred
and
thirty
two
dollars
so
we're
hoping
with
approval
of
this
measure
that
that
would
result
in
some
savings
to
the
states
and
as
well
as
some
saving
of
storage
space
and
obviously
not
generating
books
that
nobody
seemingly
wants.
E
This
bill
also
allows
distribution
of
those
nevada
reports,
advanced
opinions
and
court
rules
in
paper
and
electronic
format
to
help
meet
the
needs
of
the
recipients,
we're
finding
increasingly
that
people
tend
to
want
this
information
electronically
rather
than
a
hard
copy,
but
both
would
obviously
still
be
available.
E
While,
though,
there's
those
changes,
those
sort
of
cleanup
changes
practically
this
bill
would
not
have
a
tremendous
impact.
Aside
from
transferring
that
responsibility,
I've
had
discussions
with
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
and
we're
committed
to
continuing
to
share
all
this
information
and
continuing
to
collaborate
to
make
sure
the
information
is
available
to
the
end
users
and
the
citizens
in
the
states
and
hopefully,
by
allowing
greater
electronic
distribution.
This
would
increase
access,
not
not
make
it
less
accessible.
E
E
This
is
generally
not
a
money-making
enterprise,
it
hasn't
been
for
lcb
and
we
don't
necessarily
envision
it
for
the
court,
but
it
does
change
the
account
that
any
revenue
from
selling
these
goes
to
to
being
an
account
for
the
use
of
the
supreme
court.
E
E
That
requirement
was
added
in
2005
during
the
special
session
when
nevada
was
experiencing
sort
of
the
the
doctor
medical
insurance
crisis,
and
that
statutory
requirement
is
not
necessarily
needed
anymore,
because
medical
issues
and
professional
liability
are
both
considered
core
competencies
under
the
umbrella
of
judicial
knowledge
in
our
formalized
training
plan,
matrix
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
for
district
court
judges
and
they
get
training
on
those
topics.
Every
two
to
three
years.
E
We
did
have
training
on
medical
malpractice
during
our
what
was
going
to
be
an
in-person
district
judge
seminar
last
year,
but
became
our
first
virtual
seminar
and
the
district
judges
education
committee
can
ask
our
judicial
education
department
to
put
on
that
training
whenever
they
judge
it
necessary.
E
So
it's
been
formalized
and
incorporated
in
our
ongoing
training
plans
to
make
sure
district
court
judges
have
adequate
training
and
information
regarding
medical
malpractice
issues
also
as
we're
seeing
increased
specialization,
particularly
in
our
urban
courts.
I
think
there's
more
judicial
experience
to
handle
these
type
of
cases,
particularly
in
clark
and
washoe
counties,
was
my
understanding
that
that
there
were
some
lawyer
groups
that
were
a
little
concerned
about
this,
but
I
believe
our
current
incorporation
of
medical
malpractice
issues
into
our
training
regime
was
explained
that
they're
satisfied
that
that
is
sufficient.
E
As
far
as
that
training
for
district
court
judges,
with
that,
I
didn't
plan
on
going
into
a
section
by
section
presentation
of
the
bill,
since
it
kind
of
just
is
moving
things
from
like
chapter
345
and
some
legislative
chapters
to
chapter
two,
where
the
statutory
provisions
regarding
the
supreme
court
reside
with
that
I'd
be
happy
to
take
questions.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
mccormick,
and
if
the
secretary
could
please
note
that
senator
settlemyre
is
now
present,
it
looks
like
a
couple
of
members
have
questions.
We
will
start
with
senator
harris.
F
You
cheer
scheible,
so
I
I
have
two
questions
one.
Why
do
you
guys
want
it
back
right
if
somebody
else,
it's
very
rare
that
someone
wants
to
bring
something
back
in
house
that
somebody
else
is
doing
on
their
behalf.
F
So
I'm
wondering
why
why
what's
the
benefit
or
what's
the,
I
guess
the
the
reason
for
the
move?
Even
if
we
don't
know
the
reason
why
it
was
taken
from
you
in
the
first
place,
I'm
wondering
why
why
you
want
it
back
and
then
I'll
just
ask
my
my
second
question.
You
could
probably
address
both
at
the
same
time
on
the
repeal.
E
Thank
you
senator
again
for
the
record
john
mccormick,
the
supreme
court
discussed
this
and
I
believe
they
they
kind
of
want
to
bring
this
back
in-house
because
they
think
it's
more
appropriate
for
the
court
to
be
the
entity,
that's
publishing
and
distributing
its
decisions.
E
We
also
think
that
we'll
be
able
to
achieve
that
cost
savings
that
I
mentioned
by
removing
that
statutory
statutory
mandated
amount
of
hard
copies.
E
So
the
court
again,
I
think,
just
determined
that
they
thought
it
was
more
appropriate
for
the
the
court
to
be
handling
those
decisions
and
as
far
as
that,
training,
I
think
medical
malpractice
is
going
to
be
an
issue
for
district
courts.
That
will
require
training
and
I
don't
think
that
it
would
go
away
because
the
statutory
provision
was
repealed.
I
think
it
cleans
up
statute
and
makes
it.
E
Excuse
me,
I
think
it
cleans
up
statute,
and
I
also
think
that
there
are
a
number
of
topics
that
we
train
on
that
are
not
necessarily
required
by
statute,
but
obviously
are
still
best
practice
good
practice
to
have
judges
getting
trained
on
for
to
handle
their
various
case
loads.
So
I
don't
believe
that
that
repealing
the
statute
would
have
any
impact
on
that
training
plan
that
was
put
together.
E
We
had
a
committee
a
few
years
back
and
I
would
have
to
look
for
the
actual
time
frame
of
district
judges
that
came
together
to
develop
these
core
competencies,
including
these
key
topics
and
medical
malpractice
was
one
of
those
decided
on
by
the
district
court
judges.
So
I
think
the
value
of
training
in
that
is
recognized
by
the
community
of
users.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right,
senator
orrinshaw.
C
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
and
thank
you,
mr
mccormick,
for
presenting
this
bill.
I
I
guess
my
only
concern
is
you
know
for
for
litigants
who
can't
afford
to
hire
an
attorney,
and
you
know
so
often
are
down
at
a
law
library
trying
to
you
know,
go
forward
on
their
own
pro
se.
Do
you
think
that
with
if
this
change
becomes
law,
the
rules
and
the
information
that
they
need
will
still
be
available
to
them
in
law?
E
Thank
you
senator
again
for
the
record
john
mccormick.
All
the
law,
libraries
in
the
state
receive
copies
of
these
rules,
advanced
opinions
and
reports
currently
at
no
charge,
and
that
requirement
stays
the
same
so
hopefully,
in
terms
of
law,
libraries,
the
the
same
availability
will
be
maintained.
We
we
see
it
as
being
seamless
there
it'll
just
be
who's,
sending
the
information
to
the
libraries,
whether
or
not
it's
lcb
or
the
supreme
court,
hopefully
with
also
with
the
allowance
here
to
allow
electronic
publication
not
just
a
hard
copy.
E
Obviously
we
make
things
available
on
our
website,
but
I
think
in
combination
between
the
supreme
court
being
the
for
lack
of
a
better
term
owners
of
the
information
rather
than
lcb
will
allow
us
to
publish
further
electronically.
I've
had
some
discussions
with
our
law
library,
and
there
was
some
concern
about
copyright,
because
this
stuff
technically
belonged
to
lcb,
but
I
believe,
if
this
has
any
effect,
it
should
make
that
information,
hopefully
more
available,
particularly
on
the
internet
and
in
electronic
format.
D
Hey
man,
I'm
just
a
couple
of
quick
questions.
I
kind
of
reacted.
I
think,
similarly,
to
senator
harris
in
that
this
printing
and
and
distributing
printed
material
is
probably
not
the
supreme
court's
primary
role,
so
I
was
a
little
surprised.
You
would
take
this
from
the
division
of
the
state
that
its
existence
is
to
print
and
distribute
printed
material.
D
So
I'm
wondering
is
this,
because
this
is
viewed
as
a
potential
profit
center,
or
this
is
something
because
now
you're
taking
the
ability
to
to
sell
these
things,
which
would
normally
revert
to
the
general
fund,
as
we
do
with
other
things.
You
know
in
sunset
subcommittee:
any
fines,
any
penalties,
any
assessments
laid
on
on
market
participants
are
required
to
go
to
the
general
fund
and
not
for
the
the
use
of
the
organization
that
is
charging
it.
You
know
it.
D
How
is
the
the
court
going
to
be
handling
printing
and
sales
when
that's
never
been
part
of
their
their
core
duties?.
E
E
It
would
just
sort
of
change
the
the
machinations
of
where
the
money
goes
as
far
as
revenue
from
this,
I
don't
necessarily
envision
it
being
a
tremendous
amount
of
revenue,
and
I
have
to
say
that
I
don't
necessarily
know
how
much
lcb
currently
gets,
but
again,
if,
if
the
court
was
more
concerned
with
the
cost
saving
aspect
of
this
rather
than
the
revenue
generating
aspects.
So
if
the
committee
were
to
decide
that
went
to
the
general
fund,
I'm
I'm
sure
the
court
would
be
fine
with
it.
D
All
right,
if
I
can
follow
up
manager.
Thank
you.
I
guess.
If
what
you're
saying
or
what
I'm
understanding
you
to
say
is
that
the
ultimate
machinations
are
actually
not
changing,
you're
going
to
continue
to
use
the
state
printing
office.
This
is
about
where
the
money
goes
so
wouldn't
or
for
the
cost
savings.
D
Rather,
wouldn't
it
make
more
sense
than
to
just
reduce
the
number
of
required
or
or
eliminate
a
requirement
for
a
number
of
printed
copies
leave
everything
else
the
same
and
just
say
you
know,
the
supreme
court
will
determine
how
many
printed
copies
it
needs
and,
and-
and
you
know
we
avoid
some
of
the
changes
here.
I'm
just
my
concern
is
because
we
don't
know
why
we
made
this
change
in
the
60s
in
the
first
place.
E
Thank
you
senator
again
for
the
record
john
mccormick
again,
I
believe
part
of
the
supreme
court's
concern
on
this
made
matter.
Was
the
court
performing
the
function
of
distributing
its
decisions
and
court
rules
and,
as
far
as
stepping
back
into
that
again,
I
I
was
remiss
and
not
adequately
researching
why
the
the
change
was
made
in
the
first
place.
E
But
again,
I
think
the
supreme
court
had
that
concern
about.
I
guess,
for
lack
of
a
better
term
ownership
of
this
and
bringing
those
the
gen
the
publication
of
the
these
records
sort
of
back
where
they
came
from
for
lack
of
a
better
term
and
again,
the
statutory
requirement
for
750
sets
again,
if
that
was
the
prerogative
of
the
committee
to
to
make
some
changes
regarding
that
or
or
you
know,
take
pieces
and
parts
of
this.
That
again,
I
think,
would
be
the
prerogative
of
the
legislature.
D
I
appreciate
that
I
I
just
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
know
why
we
made
the
change
and-
and
if
maybe
the
better
way
to
do
this
would
be
just
to
remove
the
the
printing
requirement
and
leave
that
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
court
and
otherwise,
if
it
ain't
broke,
don't
fix
it
anyway.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
that.
A
All
right,
I
don't
see
any
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee.
So
that
concludes
the
presentation.
We
will
open
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
sb42.
G
A
All
right,
then,
we
will
close
testimony
in
support
of
sb42
and
open
up
testimony
in
opposition
to
sb42.
G
G
A
Okay,
then
that
concludes
our
hearing
on
sb42.
I
will
close
the
hearing
and
move
on
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
Is
there
anybody
wishing
to
give
public
comments.
A
All
right,
then,
I
believe
that
concludes
our
meeting.
I
appreciate
everybody's
attendance
and
we
will
be
meeting
again
tomorrow
at
1
p.m.
Excuse.
B
A
Absolutely,
and
with
that,
we
will
be
adjourned
until
tomorrow,
at
1
pm
meeting.