State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel
296 Neb. 581
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Les W. Veskrna requested Judicial Branch Education (JBE) records (presentations, presenters, materials) on child custody/parenting time from State Court Administrator Corey R. Steel; Steel denied access asserting confidentiality.
- Steel relied on an unwritten Committee policy, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-205.01, and Neb. Ct. R. § 1-512(A) to argue JBE records are not “public records” under the Nebraska Public Records Act (§ 84-712.01).
- Veskrna sued for a writ of mandamus under § 84-712.03 seeking disclosure; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The district court conducted in camera review of 12 documents (exhibit 4), concluded most were public records and ordered disclosure with a redaction of one judge email as deliberative.
- Steel appealed arguing (1) the statutory language and Committee policy exclude JBE records from the public-records definition, (2) separation-of-powers/inherent judicial authority prevents compelled disclosure, and (3) the judicial deliberative process privilege protects the records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veskrna) | Defendant's Argument (Steel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the requested JBE materials "public records" under § 84-712.01? | They are public records; no statutory exemption applies. | A statute authorizing the Committee to develop confidentiality rules (and its unwritten policy) means the records are excluded from the public-records definition. | Held: No. § 24-205.01 and the Rule merely authorize potential confidentiality rules; absent an adopted rule or statute expressly making them nonpublic, the records are public. |
| Does separation of powers bar application of the public-records law to these JBE records? | Disclosure does not unduly impair judicial functions; records are administrative and public. | Compelled disclosure intrudes on the judiciary’s constitutional administrative authority and would impair judicial independence. | Held: No undue interference here. Disclosure of the exhibit 4 materials does not meaningfully impair judicial functions; separation-of-powers concern does not preclude disclosure. |
| Do the records fall within a judicial deliberative process privilege? | Most JBE materials are not privileged because they do not reveal judges’ mental processes in particular cases. | Judicial deliberative privilege protects JBE materials because judicial education is intertwined with judges’ decisionmaking. | Held: Privilege adopted narrowly (protecting judges’ mental impressions and case-related deliberations) but does not apply to these documents except for one redacted judge email. |
| Was a writ of mandamus and award of fees appropriate? | Requested relief: mandamus to compel disclosure and fees. | Opposed mandamus because records not public and privilege/separation principles apply. | Held: Mandamus granted to compel disclosure of exhibit 4 (with one email redacted); costs and attorney fees awarded to Veskrna. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549 (recognition of public-records procedures and mandamus relief)
- State v. Ellsworth, 61 Neb. 444 (judicial records disclosure precedent)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (limits on absolute privilege; admonition to construe confidentiality exceptions narrowly)
- In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 (description of judicial deliberations privilege adopted here)