Clark County, Nevada Sued by Dotty's Gaming

What happens in Nevada doesn't necessarily stay in Nevada, according to a report by VEGASInc. Apparently Dotty is peeved that confidential financial records and data provided to the county for an audit were later leaked by the county to Dotty's competitors.

Dotty’s business model involves slot machines that stand alone and are grouped in brightly-lit mall locations – a business model targeting women who don’t like the traditional bar scene.

Competitors say Dotty’s is operating unfairly since they say its gaming revenue is not incidental to its main business of selling food and drinks – charges denied by Dotty’s.

In an amended lawsuit filed Monday, attorneys for Dotty’s complained that at the direction of Commissioner Steve Sisolak, the county business license department conducted a non-routine audit of Dotty’s in October and November.

"During the audit process, representatives from the department acknowledged that the business records provided by Dotty’s pursuant to the county’s audit process would 'be treated as confidential.' Indeed, the Clark County Code specifically codifies the guaranty that such information will remain protected," the amended suit charges.

"Shortly after the audit was conducted and from approximately December 2010 through March 2011, certain board (of County Commission) members began disseminating Dotty’s financial and revenue-source information to Dotty’s competitors, the public and the press without Dotty’s consent or authorization and in direct contravention of the county’s promise and legal duty to treat this information as confidential," the suit charges.

"Adding insult to injury, the confidential information was not merely disclosed, it was grossly and inaccurately inflated in public statements to enhance and support the argument that Dotty’s gaming component is not merely 'incidental' to its overall revenue and to fuel the crusade against this successful and lawfully conducted business," the amended complaint says.

This alleged leaking of information resulted in new claims against the county in the amended lawsuit of public disclosure of private facts, misappropriation of trade secrets and negligence.

We're not betting on how this one turns out.