On appeal, appellant argues that granting summary judgment
to LVMPD was improper for a variety of reasons. But in this case we are
compelled to affirm the district court's summary judgment based on
appellant's failure to provide this court with an adequate record to support
the arguments that he raises on appeal.
It is well established that an appellant has a duty to provide
this court with an adequate record on appeal and that we "generally
cannot consider matters not contained in the record." Cuzze v. Univ. &
Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007); see
also NRAP 30(b)(3) (providing that appellant's appendix "shall include
those . . . portions of the record essential to determination of issues raised
in appellant's appeal"). Here, while appellant has provided this court with
a copy of the district court's order, the minutes pertaining to that order,
and a transcript of the hearing on the summary judgment motion, he has
failed to provide copies of respondent's motion for summary judgment, his
opposition to that motion, or respondent's reply to the opposition.
To oppose a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving
party must set forth specific facts to demonstrate that a genuine issue of
material fact exists for trial. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 732,
121 P.3d 1026, 1031 (2005). Absent copies of the parties' summary
judgment motion practice, especially appellant's opposition to that motion,
this court cannot determine whether appellant demonstrated the existence
of a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment
because, among other things, it is not clear what, if any, evidence
appellant relied on for this purpose. While appellant's appendix includes
certain responses to interrogatories, deposition transcripts, and
administrative hearing documents, without appellant's opposition to the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1.947A ea
summary judgment motion, we cannot assess whether these documents
were relied on in opposing summary judgment and, if so, what arguments
appellant may have presented based on these materials. Thus, because
appellant has failed to provide this court with any of the pertinent motion
practice pertaining to the district court's grant of summary judgment, "we
necessarily presume that the missing portion[s of the district court record]
support[ ] the district court's decision" that appellant failed to
demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that
precluded summary judgment and that summary judgment was
warranted on this basis. Cuzze, 123 Nev. at 603, 172 P.3d at 135; see also
Wood, 121 Nev. at 732, 121 P.3d at 1031. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Parraguirre
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge
Israel Kunin, Settlement Judge
Kirk T. Kennedy
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A