Before Saitta, Hardesty and Parraguirre. Opinion by Hardesty.
In the petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners challenged the district court’s order denying a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to disqualify counsel and to prohibit the use of certain information. After initiation of the lawsuit by petitioners, real party in interest Bumble and Bumble Products, LLC (“Bumble”) received an anonymous package from Lebanon at its New York headquarters. The package contained a disk and a note stating that the package should be forwarded to Bumble’s counsel in Las Vegas. Subsequently, Bumble’s counsel disclosed the disk and contents therein in NRCP 16.1 supplemental disclosures. Petitioners sought to disqualify Bumble’s counsel for use of this disk. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision that Bumble’s counsel acted reasonably and within the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and adopted the following: (1) a notification requirement that an attorney who receives documents anonymously or from a third party unrelated to the litigation must promptly notify opposing counsel that the documents were not received in the ordinary course of discovery and describe, with particularity, the facts and circumstances that explain how the documents or evidence came into counsel’s or his or her client’s possession; and (2) a nonexhaustive list of factors to aid trial courts in determining whether disqualification of counsel is appropriate, as stated in In re Meador, 968 S.W. 2d 346 (Tex. 1998), of: (a) whether the attorney knew or should have known that the material was privileged; (b) the promptness with which the attorney notifies the opposing side that he or she has received its privileged information; (c) the extent to which the attorney reviews and digests the privileged information; (d) the significance of the privileged information, i.e., the extent to which its disclosure may prejudice the movant’s claim or defense, and the extent to which return of the documents will mitigate the prejudice; (e) the extent to which movant may be at fault for the unauthorized disclosure; and (f) the extent to which the nonmovant will suffer prejudice from the disqualification of his or her attorney. Petition denied. (By Lisa Wiltshire, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson)
