State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel
296 Neb. 581
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Les W. Veskrna requested Judicial Branch Education (JBE) records (materials, presenter IDs, contracts, communications) on child custody/parenting-time programs since July 1, 2012; State Court Administrator Corey Steel denied access claiming confidentiality.
- Steel relied on an unwritten Committee policy, § 24-205.01 and Neb. Ct. R. § 1-512(A) (which authorize development of confidentiality rules) and asserted separation-of-powers and a judicial deliberative-process privilege to withhold records.
- Veskrna sued for a writ of mandamus under the Nebraska public records statutes seeking disclosure; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The district court reviewed 12 contested documents in camera, concluded most were public records, redacted one judge email under a deliberative-process privilege, and ordered disclosure; Steel appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: statutory authorization to develop confidentiality rules does not itself exempt records; the judicial deliberative-process privilege is narrowly defined and did not cover the JBE materials at issue (except for the redacted email); disclosure did not unduly impair judicial functions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veskrna) | Defendant's Argument (Steel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the requested JBE documents "public records" under § 84-712.01? | They are public records; no statutory exemption applies. | JBE records are not public because a statute contemplates court rules making such records confidential. | Held: Documents are public; statutory authorization to create confidentiality rules is not an express statutory exemption absent adopted rules. |
| Does § 24-205.01 / court rule language "confidentiality of records" exempt JBE records? | No—mere authorization to develop rules does not itself exempt records. | Yes—legislative recognition and Committee practice make JBE records confidential. | Held: No; absent promulgated court rules, the exception in § 84-712.01(1) is not met. |
| Does enforcement of public records law here violate separation of powers by unduly impairing judicial functions? | Disclosure will not impair judicial independence because these are administrative/educational materials unrelated to case deliberations. | Disclosure would unduly interfere with judicial education and independence; confidentiality is essential. | Held: No undue interference; balance favors disclosure for these records given their tenuous connection to judges' mental processes. |
| Does the judicial deliberative-process privilege protect the requested JBE records? | Most JBE materials are not privileged because they do not relate to particular-case deliberations. | Judicial deliberative privilege extends to JBE materials tied to judges' decisionmaking. | Held: Privilege is narrowly tailored to judges' mental impressions and intra-judge/staff communications about particular cases; it did not apply to the JBE records here except for one redacted internal judge email. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549 (2016) (public-records mandamus framework and standards)
- State v. Ellsworth, 61 Neb. 444 (1901) (judicial records disclosure precedent)
- State, ex rel. Griggs v. Meeker, 19 Neb. 106 (1886) (historical support for public access to judicial records)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (limits on broad confidentiality privileges and executive-privilege analogy)
- In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 (2012) (adopted description of judicial deliberations privilege)