Subdivision (c) is amended to conform to the 1991 amendments to the federal rule with some minor changes to reflect practice in state court. The revised provision states the rights of persons subject to subpoena. Subdivision (c)(1) addresses the duties and liabilities of a party or attorney “responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena.” Subdivision (c)(2) retains language from former subdivision (d)(1), but it extends the 10-day period for response to a subpoena to 14 days. Subdivision (c)(3) replaces and expands on language from former subdivision (b), regarding the court’s authority to quash or modify a subpoena. Subdivision (c)(3)(A) specifies the circumstances in which the court “shall” quash or modify a subpoena. Subdivision (c)(3)(B) specifies circumstances in which a court “may” quash or modify a subpoena or impose appropriate conditions to protect the interests of the subpoenaed person. Subdivision (d) is replaced in its entirety to conform to the 1991 amendments to the federal rule. Subdivision (d)(1) extends to nonparties the duty imposed on parties by the last paragraph of Rule 34(b), regarding the manner in which documents are produced. Subdivision (d)(2) addresses the specificity required when information subject to the subpoena is “withheld on a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials.” Subdivision (e) retains the entirety of former subdivision (f). The 1991 amendment to the federal rule that added a second sentence to subdivision (e) regarding “adequate cause” for failing to obey a subpoena is not included in the revised Nevada rule. RULE 46. EXCEPTIONS UNNECESSARY Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary; but for all purposes for which an exception has heretofore been necessary it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which the party desires the court to take or the party’s objection to the action of the court and the party’s grounds therefor; and, if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice the party. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment The amendments are technical. RULE 47. JURORS (a) Examination of Jurors. The court shall conduct the examination of prospective jurors and shall permit such supplemental examination by counsel as it deems proper. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (b) Alternate Jurors. The court may direct that alternate jurors may, in addition to the regular jury, be called and impaneled to sit. Alternate jurors in the order in which they are called shall replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties. Alternate jurors shall be drawn in the same manner, shall have the same qualifications, shall be subject to the same examination and challenges, shall take the same oath, and shall have the same functions, powers, facilities, and privileges as the regular jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict. Each side is entitled to 1 peremptory challenge in addition to those otherwise allowed by law for every two alternate jurors that are to be impaneled. The additional peremptory challenges may be used against an alternate juror only, and the other peremptory challenges allowed by law shall not be used against an alternate juror. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment Subdivision (a) is amended by replacing the word “may” with “shall,” such that the court “shall permit . . . supplemental examination by counsel as it deems proper.” Subdivision (b) retains the provision for alternate jurors, whereas the federal rule was amended in 1991 to abolish the institution of the alternate juror. However, subdivision (b) is revised to eliminate language that limited the trial court to impaneling not more than six alternate jurors and allows each side one peremptory challenge for every two alternates impaneled. The revised Nevada rule does not incorporate subdivision (c) of the federal rule. RULE 48. JURIES OF LESS THAN EIGHT The parties may stipulate that the jury shall consist of four jurors rather than eight. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment The rule is amended to provide for an 8-person jury with the parties authorized to stipulate to a 4-person jury in place of the former language that provided for a 12-person jury with the parties authorized to stipulate to a 4- or 8-person jury. The changes are based on current civil jury practice and the adoption of the Nevada Short Trial Rules. RULE 49. SPECIAL VERDICTS AND INTERROGATORIES (a) Special Verdicts. The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If in so doing the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives the right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires the party demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (b) General Verdict Accompanied by Answer to Interrogatories. The court may submit to the jury, together with appropriate forms for a general verdict, written interrogatories upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict. The court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury both to make answers to the interrogatories and to render a general verdict, and the court shall direct the jury both to make written answers and to render a general verdict. When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the court may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict, the court shall not direct the entry of judgment but may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment The amendments to subdivision (a) are technical. Subdivision (b) is amended to include a reference to entry of judgment under Rule 58 consistent with the federal rule. But unlike the federal rule, the Nevada rule retains permissive language in the last sentence of subdivision (b), regarding returning the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or ordering a new trial where the jury’s answers to written interrogatories are “inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict.” RULE 50. JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN JURY TRIALS; ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; CONDITIONAL RULINGS (a) Judgment as a Matter of Law. (1) If during a trial by jury, a party has been fully heard on an issue and on the facts and law a party has failed to prove a sufficient issue for the jury, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue. (2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at the close of the evidence offered by the nonmoving party or at the close of the case. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial; Alternative Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after service of written notice of entry of judgment and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed motion the court may:

Vegas Law