Judge to decide whether Clark County willfully broke Nevada public records law in Review-Journal lawsuit

What happened

District Judge Bita Yeager will consider a Las Vegas Review-Journal request to find that Clark County willfully violated the Nevada Public Records Act, the newspaper reported. The dispute involves records about the award of public works contracts that benefited the wife of a county public works official. Yeager heard hours of testimony Monday from Review-Journal and county witnesses.

The judge had already found that the county broke the law when it refused to release records tied to the firing of Jimmy Floyd, the former head of the county's construction management division. Attorneys have until Dec. 7 to submit briefing before Yeager decides the willfulness question.

Why a willful finding matters

According to Review-Journal Chief Legal Officer Ben Lipman, a ruling in the newspaper's favor may be the first finding that a government entity willfully violated the state's public records law. The Review-Journal reported that such a ruling would require Yeager to order a civil penalty against the county.

The contracts behind the requests

The Review-Journal's reporting examined how Rock Solid Project Solutions, a firm owned by Floyd's wife Raquel, received part of a $10 million contract to manage the 215 and Summerlin Parkway construction project. Investigative reporter Mary Hynes testified that she looked into claims that Floyd gave preferential treatment to his wife's company. She said she sought evaluations of Rock Solid, investigative reports and information on what the county did in response to investigations.

What witnesses told the court

The newspaper's account

Lipman testified that the newspaper was acting in the public interest. "We were trying to determine whether there was any public corruption going on," he told the judge, according to the Review-Journal. He said County Counsel Lisa Logsdon claimed some information could be withheld because it involved personnel issues.

Lipman said that during an October 2025 call, months after the first request, Logsdon indicated she had not investigated which records existed. "My reaction was shock," he said. He testified that Logsdon agreed to provide a list of withheld records, supplied some information, repeatedly pushed back deadlines and eventually stopped responding.

Hynes testified that the county withheld the names of contract evaluators but offered to confirm names if she guessed correctly. She said county spokesperson Jennifer Cooper confirmed some of her guesses, but she did not get unredacted evaluations until after the lawsuit was filed. Hynes said the county eventually told her no more records would be released, without saying which records it was holding back.

Colleen McCarty, an attorney for the newspaper, said the county withheld evaluator names, failed to respond on time and properly, failed to search for records and failed to identify what was being withheld, among other violations.

The county's account

Elliot Anderson, a lawyer for the county, said the county communicated extensively with the Review-Journal and acted in "good faith." Logsdon appeared to recall the October 2025 call differently, the newspaper reported. "So I am not the gatherer of the records of the county," she said, and she did not clearly answer whether she had examined the documents by the time of that call.

Cooper testified that the county tried to be helpful and that confirming names based on Hynes' guesses was a compromise that supported transparency. When she speculated about possible consequences of releasing evaluator names, Yeager sustained McCarty's objection to the speculation.

Where the case stands

The Review-Journal filed the lawsuit in March after the county released some records but refused others. Yeager previously ordered the county to turn over records. The county tried and failed to delay Monday's hearing, but it won a pause from the Nevada Supreme Court on the disclosure of some information, the newspaper reported.

What to watch next

• Attorneys for both sides face a Dec. 7 deadline to submit briefing to Judge Yeager.
• Yeager will then rule on whether the county willfully violated the Nevada Public Records Act, a finding that would require a civil penalty.