State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel
296 Neb. 581
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Les W. Veskrna requested Judicial Branch Education (JBE) records (presentations, presenter identities, materials) on child custody/parenting time since July 1, 2012; State Court Administrator Corey Steel denied the request.
- Steel asserted an unwritten Committee policy treating all JBE records as confidential and relied on statutes authorizing the Committee to develop confidentiality rules; he also argued separation of powers and a judicial deliberative process privilege protected the records.
- Veskrna sued by writ of mandamus under Nebraska’s public records statute to compel disclosure; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court held the public records statutes applied; it conducted in camera review of 12 documents (Exhibit 4), redacted one judge email under the deliberative privilege, and ordered disclosure of the remainder.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: the statutory authorization to develop confidentiality rules did not itself exempt records from the public-records definition, and the specific JBE materials reviewed did not fall within the judicial deliberative process privilege or otherwise impair core judicial functions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veskrna) | Defendant's Argument (Steel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the requested JBE records "public records" under § 84-712.01? | Records are public; no statutory exemption applies. | Committee’s statutory authority to develop confidentiality rules and its unwritten policy means records are not "public records." | Held: Records are public; statutory authorization to develop rules does not itself expressly exempt records absent adopted rules. |
| Does the Committee’s unwritten confidentiality policy / statute satisfy the § 84-712.01 exception? | N/A (Veskrna argues no exemption). | The Legislature’s statute and court rule authorizing confidentiality suffice to exempt records. | Held: No; an unwritten policy and statute authorizing future rules do not "expressly provide" records shall not be public. |
| Does disclosure violate separation of powers by unduly interfering with the judiciary’s essential functions? | Disclosure of these administrative JBE records does not impair judicial functions. | Confidentiality is essential to judicial education and independence; disclosure would impair functions. | Held: Disclosure of the specific JBE materials posed no meaningful impairment; separation-of-powers concern does not bar disclosure here. |
| Do the requested records fall within the judicial deliberative process privilege? | Records are administrative and not privileged; privilege does not shield these materials. | Judicial deliberation privilege extends to JBE materials tied to judicial decisionmaking. | Held: Privilege is narrowly defined and absolute for judge mental impressions in particular-case deliberations; the Exhibit 4 materials did not fall within it except for a single email (which was properly redacted). |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549 (recognition of public-records remedy and mandamus review)
- State v. Ellsworth, 61 Neb. 444 (historical application of public-records principles to judicial records)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (limits on broad claims of privilege; exceptions construed narrowly)
- In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 (2012) (description/adoption of judicial deliberations privilege)
- State v. Cribbs, 237 Neb. 947 (support for transparency in judicial records)