Judge orders county workers to save Red Rock development text messages

A Clark County judge ruled Wednesday that certain county employees must preserve private text messages related to developer Jim Rhodes’ long-stalled housing project near Red Rock Canyon.

The scope of messages preserved will be “narrowly tailored” to staffers in the comprehensive planning and air quality management departments and will only include communications related to the Gypsum Resources LLC proposed development on Blue Diamond Hill, District Judge Joanna Kishner said in a morning hearing.

Rhodes and the county have been locked in a years-long legal dispute in which the developer alleges that Commissioner Justin Jones and county employees conspired to railroad his project and that the county subsequently destroyed evidence.

Rhodes’ attorneys, in court filings, alleged damages around $2 billion.

This year, a federal judge sanctioned Jones for deleting text messages from his cellphone pertaining to efforts to halt the project. A separate magistrate, however, dropped all federal claims brought forth by Gypsum Resources and declined to take up claims made under state law.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro wrote in her ruling that the county maintained discretion whether to grant or deny the project’s applications and had no protected entitlement to a zoning change.

Rhodes attorneys soon after filed a similar lawsuit in Clark County District Court.

“Gypsum is pleased that the Court granted its motion and will require the county to preserve public records, including text communications by the Commissioners and employees connected to Gypsum and its claims,” Todd Bice, an attorney representing Gypsum Resources, wrote in a statement. “Frankly, it is disappointing that the county even required Gypsum to bring a motion to compel the county to follow the law.”

County officials declined to comment.

Attorney Thomas Dillard Jr., representing the county, argued in court that communications from private employees cellphones were protected constitutionally.

And he noted that the county had already produced “thousands” of records as part of discovery in the previous lawsuit.

“We don’t have a live controversy for your honor to address,” Dillard said. “This is an academic issue. We’re not talking about any particular communication, or any objection made to discovery.”

Kishner said that she only has a complaint and no preconceived notions about its allegations.

“The court is not making any affirmative determinations that Clark County has acted in any way inappropriately,” she said. “This is a brand new case for me.”

A June litigation hold letter asking employees to preserve records, issued after the latest lawsuit was filed, lacked clarity, Kishner said. She said both parties had two weeks to draft a new letter.

The suit names Clark County and the seven-member Board of Commissioners but doesn’t single out Jones, who recently cited the lawsuit in his decision to step down as vice chair of the commission.

The board hasn’t voted on his replacement.

The Nevada State Bar launched an investigation into Jones after the federal judge sanctioned him and awarded Gypsum Resources fees for bringing the motion forward. Jones is appealing the sanctions.

As a private attorney before taking office, Jones represented a conservation group opposed to Rhodes’ project.

Gypsum alleges that Jones and then-Commission Chairman Steve Sisolak traded favors: the commissioner would delay voting on entitlements and Save Red Rock would drop the lawsuit and endorse his campaign for governor. Both lawmakers have denied wrongdoing.

After Jones took office, county staff reversed its previous recommendation to approve Rhodes’ development.

Last year, the Clark County Zoning Commission approved a tentative map for 400 single-family homes Rhodes intends to build on his gypsum mine.

“The Nevada Supreme Court ruled over (five) years ago that such text communications are ‘public records’ to which the public is entitled to have access,” Bice wrote in his statement responding to Wednesday’s ruling.

“Sadly, the county has simply sought to disregard the requirements of Nevada’s Public Records Act and has been allowing the destruction of those public records despite the law’s prohibition upon such destruction.”

Contact Ricardo Torres-Cortez at rtorres@reviewjournal.com. Follow @rickytwrites on Twitter.