*1 reasons, these days additional three for service by mail should Then, be added to the time allotted by statute or rule first. if the deadline falls on a non-judicial day, the deadline should be ex- tended to the judicial next day.14

Here, the district court should have added the three days allowed on the mailing thirty-first even day, though the thirty-first day was a Saturday, non-judicial day. This would computation result thirty-fourth in the day falling on Tuesday, judicial day. there would be no need to extend the deadline further.

Custom Cabinet also contends that the district court abused its discretion treating of NAR provisions 18 as procedural, not jurisdictional. The district court never addressed the issue of whether Rule 18 was procedural jurisdictional, did nor it need Instead, to. merely court used a method computational favored courts, by the federal but contradicted by Nevada precedent.

Nevada has established a in Ross precedent an ad- requires three days dition of for service by mail before considering whether additional days are required having avoid a deadline fall on a non-judicial day. Consequently, district court was compelled to grant petitioners’ motion to strike the trial de novo request and manifestly abused its discretion in denying that motion. Our inter- by way warranted, vention of extraordinary relief is therefore we grant this petition.15 clerk of this court shall issue a writ of mandamus instructing district court to grant motion to strike the trial de novo request to enter on the judgment arbi- tration award filed on 2001. July RENO, Appellant,

CITY OF v. RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL, No. 40393 February 63 P.3d 1147 6(a). 14 SeeNRCP 34.160; Newman, Imp. Round Hill Gen. Dist. v. Nev. Court, (1981); Smith v. District 950 P.2d 280 *2 D. Shipman, and Jonathan Lynch, City Attorney, Patricia A. Reno, Attorney, Appellant. for City

Deputy Burton, W.Bartlett and Rebecca Phillip & and Glogovac Bartlett Rivenbark, Reno, A. for Pagni LLP and Michael A.T. Carano Wilson McDonald Harrison, Reno, Meadows Amicus Curiae Truckee

Sylvia L. Authority. Water En Banc.

Before the Court

OPINION Per Curiam: whether documents re- we are asked to consider

In this appeal, for the Reno to relocation and lated (ReTRAC) Project Rail Access Corridor Transportation the Nevada Public Records disclosure under requiring have been declared confiden- Act. We conclude that these records under the from disclosure exempt tial law. Nevada Public Records

FACTS City (City) December of Reno entered into an with the agreement Union Pacific Railroad to build ReTRAC. The of ReTRAC purpose is to eliminate eleven existing at-grade rail crossings by building downtown Reno a trench for trains to travel through City. largest ReTRAC is the proj- works undertaken, City ect the has ever with an estimated budget of $200,000,000. The budget for ReTRAC has been the subject of immense controversy several lawsuits.

To complete project, City must certain real acquire property, including parcels along the railroad right-of- way. Additionally, approximately fifty-two businesses have to be relocated to accommodate the project. Because ReTRAC is classified as a federal highway project, City must the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property (the Act).1 Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 The Cooperative (Stewardship) Agreement between the and the Nevada (NDOT), Department Transportation the Federal Highway ReTRAC, agent Administration’s specifically states that the provide written certification to NDOT that all right- new *3 was of-way acquired accordance with the Act. Damon,

On July Anjeanette a reporter employed by (RGJ), the Reno Gazette-Journal sent a letter to Brent Boyer, Property Program Manager of the City, requesting access to ap- and other documents related to ReTRAC. praisal Specifically, (1) Damon requested access to: the values for each of the appraisal of parcels property acquired by City to be the for ReTRAC, including monetary the amount offered the by City for each title acquisition, acquisition buildings of on the railroad right-of-way, and of acquisition temporary permanent ease- ments; (2) the each the monetary fifty- amount to be offered to of two businesses that have to be relocated because of the proj- ect; (3) a breakdown of other costs included in the specific $17,760,000 project’s budget; and the property-acquisition owner, name and address of each leaseholder and physical City tenant who would receive from the with the list of payment values and relocation appraisal payments. City

In a letter dated the denied Damon’s re- August classify on the that state and federal law all records quest grounds City relating acquisition maintained the to ReTRAC property and relocation as confidential as a matter of law use as information.

The RGJ then the district court for a writ of man- petitioned and relocation records argued acquisition damus. The RGJ and are to be for under required open inspection 1 42U.S.C. §§ the consequence, Public Records Act. As a district writ, City of such directing provide copies court issued a why pro- or show cause such documents should not be

documents an to the RGJ’s After a City opposition petition. vided. The filed writ of mandamus di- hearing, permanent district court issued of the documents to recting City provide copies requested the RGJ. and a motion filed a notice of this court appeal with the district court. Because the district stay pending appeal an stay, emergency

court denied the motion for a filed mo- court, writ with which we stay granted. tion to

DISCUSSION Standard review grant deny

“A district court’s decision to or a writ is re- petition viewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”2 by this court However, construction, the mean- statutory including questions statute, law, ing and of a which this court re- scope questions de views novo.3 and Real Property Acquisition Relocation Assistance Uniform

Policies Act enacted the Congress United States Uniform Relocation and Real Policies Act of 19704 to Property Acquisition Assistance the fair establish “a uniform treatment of policy equitable a direct result of or under- persons displaced programs projects agency taken a Federal or with Federal financial assistance.”5 The Act with the Act’s requires agency policies state agency “any whenever the seeks federal financial assistance for which will result in the of real program project prop- erty January on and after 1971.”6 NRS 342.105 *4 1989,

In enacted 342.105. Legislature Nevada NRS This statute in relevant provides, part: Comm’rs, 616, 621, 465, County 2 DRPartners v. Bd. 116 Nev. 6 P.3d Doumani, 46, 53, 13, County 468 Clark v. 114 Nev. 952 P.2d (1998)). 3 State, Constr., 83, 86, 423, Bus. & Indus. v. Granite 40 P.3d Co., (2002) (citing Exposition v. United Services SIIS 294, (1995).

4 42U.S.C. §§ 4621(b) (1995). 5 42U.S.C. § 4655(a) (1995).

6 42U.S.C. § Any department, agency, instrumentality or political subdivi- state, sion of this or any other private entity, which subject is to the provisions of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 4601-4655, 42 U.S.C. and the regulations §§ adopted thereto, pursuant and which undertakes project re- sults in the acquisition of real or in a property person being home, farm, displaced from his business or shall . . . follow such procedures and practices as are necessary to comply with those federal requirements.7 The Nevada statute references the federal Act and the regulations Therefore, adopted pursuant to the Act. the federal Act and the reg- ulations are incorporated so, into Nevada’s statute and remain long Furthermore, as the federal Act is in force.8 by making reference to Act, “should the United future, States Congress again, in the Act, amend the Uniform Relocation would automatically be [Nevada] in compliance having without to readjust the state statutes.”9 The City is a political subdivision of the State. City is subject to NRS 342.105. The City is currently process of acquiring real for the ReTRAC project. financed, ReTRAC is being in part, by federal funds. City must the Act and regulations that were Furthermore, adopted by reference in NRS 342.105. the City is also under a contractual obligation to comply with the require- ments of the Act and NRS 342.105 because compliance with the Act was an express term of the Cooperative (Stewardship) Agreement entered into by the City. Act,

Nevada Public Records NRS 239.010 the Nevada Legislature enacted the Nevada Public Act, NRS 239.010. The purpose of this statute is “to en- sure the accountability of the government to the public by facili- tating public access to vital information governmental about activ- ities.”10 The statute provides, in relevant part:

All public and public books governmental records of a entity, the contents of which are not otherwise declared law to be confidential, must be open at all times during office hours to 342.105(1). 8 See Buckingham, Walsh ex rel. v. 9 Hearing Comm., Assembly on A.B. 623 Before the Governmental Affairs (Nev., Leg., 1989) (statement Barlow, 65th May at 3 Conway Mr. Administration). Highway Division of the Federal Partners,

10 DR 116 Nev. at 6 P.3d at 468.

60 an ab- fully be may and by any person, copied

inspection public from those may prepared stract or memorandum be and records.11 books public must be avail- that records provides public This statute plainly law to be unless records declared inspection, able for Thus, the is whether these records inquiry relevant confidential.12 have declared If the records in been question are confidential.13 confidential, Public they are from the Nevada exempt law to be 24.9(b) C.F.R. 49 § agency federal Act that head of the lead provides

The “[t]he . . and . . . such publish, regulations shall. issue develop, necessary carry designates out this Act chapter.”14 be “lead One of the agency.”15 as the Department Transportation 24.9(b), Act is 49 C.F.R. regulations issued pursuant § by an in accor- Agency which states that maintained “[r]ecords regarding public are confidential their use as part dance ’ information, unless law otherwise.’ applicable provides regulation according plain meaning.16 We a to its This interpret makes involved in regulation plainly confidential, federally real funded programs unless there is a law that public providing not that Public argues are not confidential. RGJ the Nevada public. Records Act is the law that makes these records applicable disagree. We an statu- previously

We have stated that “it is rule of accepted a tory provision specifically construction that which a applies only gen- take one that given precedence situation will over applies Here, erally.”17 the federal that regulation specifically provides these records are “confidential use as in- 239.010(1) added). (emphasis 353, 870, 366, Haggerty, 12 SeeNevada Power Co. v. 115 Nev. P.2d 878 989 (1999) (“ language plain unambiguous, ‘When the statute is court ’’ ordinary go (quot give language meaning beyond and not it.’ should 891, ing City 974, Newspapers, Reno Council Reno v. 105 Nev. P.2d (1989))). parties record address of the re 13 The reflects did not whether quested documents meet the definition for book or record. (1995). 4633(a)(1) 14 42U.S.C. § 4601(12) (1995). 15 42U.S.C. § Nev., v. John 16 SeeState Envtl. Comm’n Lawrence Rottman, v. 17 Sierra Ins. Co. 601 P.2d Life Reno,

(1979) (citing W. v. R. Co. formation, unless law applicable provides otherwise.”18 The Nevada Public Records Act merely provides that public records confidential,” that are not “declared by law to be open be *6 It inspection.19 does not declare that records acquisition of are public. Acquisition records have been declared 24.9(b), confidential under 49 C.F.R. which was adopted by § Therefore, statute into Nevada law. these records fit within the ex- emption provided in the Nevada Public The Nevada Public Records Act is not “applicable law” changing the confi- dential nature of these records.

CONCLUSION 342.105, reference, In NRS the Legislature Nevada by adopted, the federal Act and regulations. 24.9(b), Under 49 C.F.R. the § in records are question confidential. They therefore exempt from the Nevada Public Records Act.20 we reverse the dis- trict court’s order and dissolve the writ of mandamus.21

Gibbons, J., dissenting:

I would affirm the decision of the district court. public opinion is the most of all potent

“[IJnformed restraints Act, upon misgovernment.”1 The Nevada Public Records NRS 239.010, citizens with an provides to unqualified right access pub- lic records unless the records are declared confidential law. We by have held that any exception this statute “should be interpreted ’2 and applied narrowly.’

Since the Reno Transportation Rail Access Project Corridor (ReTRAC) is classified as a highway project, of Reno (City) is adhere required to to the Uniform Relocation Assistance (Act). and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Under C.F.R. 24.9(b), records maintained in accordance with the Act “are § confidential regarding their use as public ap- unless plicable provides added.) law otherwise.” (Emphasis a state such as Nevada make an determination independent 24.9(b) (2002). C.F.R.

18 49 § 239.010(1).

19 SeeNRS

20 SeeNRS 239.010. Maupin, Justice, participate did not in the 21 TheHonorable A. William decision of this matter. Co., 1 Grosjean v. American Press 297 U.S. Comm’rs, County 2 DRPartners v. Bd. of State, Ins., (2000) (citing Dep’t Ashokan v. of Nixon, United States v. 418 U.S. (1974) (“Whatever origins, exceptions every these to the demand for construed, lightly expansively man’s evidence are not created nor truth.”))). derogation in search for deemed the Act should be relating records public

of whether confidential. governing law applicable Records Act is the

The Nevada Public has party ReTRAC documents. Neither “confidentiality” of records. The pur- documents are pertinent public disputed gov- of the accountability “to ensure the of NRS 239.010 is pose to vital infor- facilitating access by ernment to the public coincides with activities.”3 This governmental mation about government.4 applying general favoring open Nevada’s policy legislature creating in considering law and the intent of 239.010, relating acquisition to property NRS Rather, these docu- not be “confidential.” for ReTRAC should review the citizens most affected subject ments should be its impact. works largest costly public project

ReTRAC is the and most $282 The project’s with a cost of million. history nearly $18 at million. budget alone is acquisition projected and re- of land parcels includes the project legislature’s in- fifty-two *7 location of businesses. approximately scrutiny through public accountable holding agencies tent of local acquisi- pertaining necessitates that documents public. tion under ReTRAC be made available to secrecy proj- behind a veil of hiding should be from precluded magnitude. ect of such

Further, af- abridgement publicity “the suppression be re- a free issues of cannot press forded concern] [to press than with concern.”5 Freedom of the garded grave otherwise remain inviolate. EXCHANGE, Appellant, FARMERS INSURANCE v. NEAL, FLOSSIE No. 37977 64 P.3d 472 March 3 Id. Bradshaw, Donrey v. 4 Id.at 6 P.3d at 468 cf 635-36,

5 Grosjean, at 250. 297 U.S.