Secrecy by judge rejected

CARSON CITY -- Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta abused her authority when as a Clark County district judge she issued a gag order and sealed child support proceedings involving a former judicial colleague, the Supreme Court said Thursday.

Saitta did not meet the requirements in state law when she sealed the court records in 2006 involving former Family Court Judge Robert Lueck, who at the time was seeking to return to the bench, the court said in the unanimous decision written by Justice Michael Douglas.

Because state law allows a court to seal only certain documents in a divorce proceeding, and only upon the written request of one of the parties, the decision by Saitta to seal the entire case without a written request, "was a manifest abuse of discretion," the court said.

The gag order, which prohibited public discussion of the case by those involved, was issued without making required findings or providing proper public notice, the court said.

The ruling directs the Clark County District Court to end the gag order and open the case to the public.

Saitta, who was elected to the Supreme Court in 2006, did not participate in the decision. Senior Justice Deborah Agosti served in her place.

Saitta's office said she did not want to comment on the decision. Lueck, an attorney in private practice, could not be reached for comment.

The ruling was a victory for Jane Johanson, who asked the Supreme Court through her attorney Bruce Shapiro to nullify the gag order and unseal the records of her child support case involving Lueck, her ex-husband.

Shapiro could not be reached for comment.

Shapiro in a petition filed last year accused Saitta of issuing the gag order and sealing the court records to prevent voters from learning that Lueck failed to pay child support. Lueck, who served on the Family Court bench between 1999-2004, was running again in 2006 for a seat in Family Court. Lueck lost to William Potter for the seat in Department M.

Shapiro accused Saitta of showing favoritism toward Lueck by preventing anyone from discussing the case or accessing the decision she issued after a July 11, 2006, hearing. At that hearing, Saitta found that Lueck was behind in his $750-a-month child support payments.

But she said of the case: "I'm sealing it, period," citing the potential use of the child support information for negative campaigning.

Saitta was running at the time against incumbent Justice Nancy Becker for the Supreme Court.

Saitta said in October 2006 that she had made the statements about negative campaigns. But she said that she was incredulous about being accused of showing favoritism and that she ordered the gag order and sealed the records to protect the child.

In his response to the request by Shapiro to unseal the record, Lueck said that the courts do have the power to close their proceedings and records when justified by the circumstances.

But the court said the Legislature was clear in requiring certain documents in divorce proceedings to remain public.

As to the gag order, Johanson said it was unconstitutionally vague and violated her free speech rights. The court agreed, saying such orders can be entered only when there is a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat and when there are no less restrictive alternatives available.

The Supreme Court decision did not delve into any motivation by Saitta for sealing the case in the 13-page decision. The court found only that the action was improper.

Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or (775) 687-3900.