Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 982 N.W.2d 815

David H. Jacob, a committed offender, requested the "complete record" of his informal first-step parole review held Sept. 5, 2019; he received an Offender Board Review Notice summarizing the denial reasons but no verbatim transcript.
Jacob asked the Nebraska Board of Parole for the record under the public records statute; the Board responded no verbatim transcript was made and said pertinent information is stored in the Parole Information Management System (PIMS) and conveyed in the Notice.
The Board refused broader disclosure, asserting (1) any review record is part of the offender's confidential "individual file" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,125.01(2) and (2) records of inmate interviews are investigatory/examination records exempt under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.05(5).
Jacob filed a verified petition for a public‑records writ of mandamus and later sought leave to amend to add a declaratory‑judgment claim about the meaning of "complete record." The district court denied leave to amend and granted summary judgment for the Board.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held interview/ review records fall within the investigatory exemption and that individual parole files are statutorily confidential, so the records were not public; it also found no abuse of discretion in denying the late amendment for declaratory relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complete record of a first‑step parole review is a public record subject to disclosure under Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 84	Jacob: § 83‑1,111 requires a "complete record" be made and preserved; he sought whatever exists in PIMS and it should be public (except orders/notices).	Board: No verbatim transcript exists; any review record is part of the confidential "individual file" (§ 83‑1,125.01(2)) and records of interviews are investigatory/examination records exempt under § 84‑712.05(5); the Notice contains all pertinent information.	Held: Records of the interview constitute investigatory/examination records and may be withheld under § 84‑712.05(5); the individual file is statutorily confidential under § 83‑1,125.01(2) and thus not a public record.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Jacob leave to amend to add a declaratory‑judgment claim about what constitutes a "complete record"	Jacob: Amendment should be allowed; he wanted a declaration on statutory meaning and to avoid trial.	Board: Amendment was untimely, prejudicial, and would inject new legal issues better raised in a separate action.	Held: Denial of leave was not an abuse of discretion—amendment was untimely and would delay/alter the case; declaratory relief could be pursued separately.

State ex rel. BH Media Group v. Frakes, 305 Neb. 780, 943 N.W.2d 231 (Neb. 2020) (public‑records disclosure principles and burden‑shifting for writ of mandamus)
State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549, 878 N.W.2d 540 (Neb. 2016) (statute making certain records privileged means they are not public records for mandamus purposes)
Evertson v. City of Kimball, 278 Neb. 1, 767 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 2009) (two‑part test for whether a record is an investigatory/examination record exempt from disclosure)
Kaiser v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 307 Neb. 562, 949 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 2020) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141, 959 N.W.2d 225 (Neb. 2021) (factors and standards governing leave to amend pleadings)