State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel
296 Neb. 581
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Les W. Veskrna requested Judicial Branch Education (JBE) records (presentations, presenters, materials) about child custody/parenting time since July 1, 2012; State Court Administrator Corey Steel denied the request asserting confidentiality.
- Steel relied on an unwritten Committee policy and statutes granting the JBE advisory committee authority to develop confidentiality rules, separation-of-powers concerns, and the judicial deliberative process privilege.
- Veskrna sued for a writ of mandamus under Nebraska’s public records statute to compel disclosure; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court conducted an in camera review of 12 documents (Exhibit 4), concluded most were public records, ordered disclosure with a redaction to one judge email, and awarded fees; Steel appealed and Veskrna cross‑appealed limited evidentiary rulings.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: no statute currently “expressly provides” JBE records are nonpublic, the judicial deliberative privilege is narrowly defined and did not cover the exhibit documents (except the redacted email), and disclosure did not impermissibly impair judicial functions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veskrna) | Defendant's Argument (Steel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested JBE records are "public records" under §84-712.01 | Records are public; no statutory exemption applies | Committee’s unwritten confidentiality practice plus §24-205.01 and court rule authorize non-disclosure | Held public: statute delegating rulemaking power does not itself "expressly provide" records be nonpublic |
| Whether judicial deliberative process privilege shields JBE records | Privilege should be limited; administrative JBE materials are not deliberative case materials | Privilege extends to JBE because education is intertwined with judges’ deliberative processes | Held privilege narrowly protects judges’ mental impressions in particular cases; most JBE materials here do not fall within it (one email redacted) |
| Whether application of public records law violates separation of powers | Disclosure does not unduly interfere with judicial functions | Legislative/public-records mandate would intrude on the judiciary’s core functions and inherent authority | Held no separation-of-powers violation: disclosure of these materials does not meaningfully impair judicial functions; balance requires case-by-case analysis |
| Whether Committee’s unwritten policy suffices to exempt records | N/A | Unwritten/tacit Committee policy makes records confidential | Held insufficient: unwritten policy cannot replace an adopted statute or court rule exempting records |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549 (recognizing mandamus under public-records law)
- State v. Ellsworth, 61 Neb. 444 (application of public records law to judicial records)
- State, ex rel. Griggs v. Meeker, 19 Neb. 106 (early Nebraska support for public access to court records)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (limits on broad executive privilege; courts must narrowly construe confidentiality claims)
- In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 (description of judicial deliberations privilege adopted by the court)
- Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 294 Neb. 842 (bench-trial factual-findings standard and remedy principles)