Nevada Supreme Court Allows Raw Testing Data in Psychological Exam Discovery
The court held that a state regulation cannot override district court discovery decisions, permitting raw testing data under protective order.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 8, 2026, 4:03 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 8, 2026, 4:03 p.m. ETFirst report
Nevada Supreme Court Rules Regulation Cannot Override Court Discovery Decisions
The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that NAC 641.234(3) cannot direct the district court's discovery decisions, according to a report by the National Law Review. The decision, issued in the case Davis v. Dist. Ct., 142 Adv. Op. 58 (2026), allows raw testing data to be produced under a protective order.
The court's holding addresses the tension between administrative regulations and judicial authority over discovery. The case is at the appellate stage, and the lower court had been adjudicated as liable, as reported by the National Law Review.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 20:06current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 20:03current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.