State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel, 296 Neb. 581

Background

Les W. Veskrna requested Judicial Branch Education (JBE) records (materials, presenter IDs, correspondence) about child custody/parenting-time programs since July 1, 2012; State Court Administrator Corey R. Steel denied the request as confidential.
Steel relied on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-205.01 and court rule § 1-512(A) and an unwritten Committee policy to argue that 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 production; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The district court conducted in camera review of 12 documents and ordered disclosure of all but a redacted portion of one judge’s email, concluding most records were public and not covered by any deliberative-process privilege.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held the statutory delegation to the Court to adopt confidentiality rules did not itself make JBE records exempt from the public records definition; the judicial deliberations privilege did not cover the challenged records (except the redacted email); mandamus and fee award were affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Veskrna (Plaintiff) Argument	Steel (Defendant) Argument	Held
Are the requested JBE documents "public records" under § 84-712.01?	Yes — the statute broadly defines public records and no statutory exemption applies.	No — an authorizing statute (§ 24-205.01) and court rule recognizing confidentiality authority mean the records are excepted.	Held: Documents are public; the mere grant of rule-making/confidentiality authority is not an "express statute" exempting records.
Does the Committee’s unwritten policy create an exemption from disclosure?	N/A (Veskrna challenges confidentiality)	Unwritten longstanding Committee policy makes JBE records confidential.	Held: No — an unwritten policy cannot substitute for an enacted statute or adopted court rule to exempt records.
Do separation-of-powers principles or the judicial deliberations privilege bar disclosure?	Disclosure does not impair judicial functions; privilege limited to true judicial deliberations.	Disclosure intrudes on judicial independence; JBE materials are intertwined with judges’ deliberative processes and deserve confidentiality.	Held: Separation-of-powers does not prohibit disclosure here; the judicial deliberations privilege is narrowly adopted and applies only to judges’ mental impressions/communications related to particular-case deliberations — it did not cover the JBE records at issue except for one internal email (redacted).
Was mandamus and fee award appropriate?	Requested relief appropriate because access was denied to public records.	Opposed.	Held: Mandamus ordering disclosure (with one redaction) and award of costs/attorney fees affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549 (recognition of public records law applicability and mandamus relief)
State v. Ellsworth, 61 Neb. 444 (historical application of public access to judicial records)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (limits on broad government confidentiality claims and privilege)
In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 (description and scope of judicial deliberations privilege adopted as guidance)