State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel
296 Neb. 581
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Les W. Veskrna requested Judicial Branch Education (JBE) records (materials, presenter identities, correspondence) about child custody and parenting-time seminars since July 1, 2012; State Court Administrator Corey R. Steel denied access.
- Steel asserted an unwritten Committee policy treating all JBE records as confidential and relied on §24-205.01 and court rule authority to develop confidentiality rules.
- Veskrna sued for a writ of mandamus under Nebraska’s public records statutes, seeking disclosure; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The district court conducted an in camera review of 12 records, redacted one judge email as privileged, and ordered disclosure of the remainder; Steel appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the records are “public records,” whether any statute or privilege exempts them, and whether disclosure violates separation of powers.
Issues
| Issue | Veskrna's Argument | Steel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the requested JBE materials "public records" under §84-712.01? | Yes — materials of the judicial branch are public unless another statute expressly makes them nonpublic. | No — Committee policy and statutory language recognizing confidentiality mean these are not "public records." | Held: Records are public; §24-205.01 does not by itself "expressly provide" non-disclosure. |
| Does §24-205.01 (and related court rule language) exempt JBE records from disclosure? | N/A (Veskrna argues no statutory exemption applies). | Yes — statute authorizes Committee to develop confidentiality rules, so records qualify under the statutory exception to public records. | Held: No — authority to develop rules is not an express statutory provision that records shall be nonpublic, and no such rules had been adopted. |
| Does mandating disclosure violate separation of powers by impairing judicial functions? | Disclosure of these administrative JBE records does not meaningfully impair judicial functions. | Disclosure unduly interferes with judicial independence and administration; confidentiality is essential. | Held: No undue interference here — disclosure of these records does not significantly impair the judiciary’s essential functions. |
| Are the records protected by the judicial deliberative-process privilege? | Most requested materials are not privileged because they are administrative and not tied to deliberations on specific cases. | Judicial deliberative privilege protects JBE materials as they relate to judges’ deliberative processes. | Held: Privilege adopted narrowly; the privilege protects judges’ mental impressions and intra-judicial communications about particular cases, but it does not cover the exhibit 4 materials (only one email was properly redacted). |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549, 878 N.W.2d 540 (2016) (public-records mandamus procedure and standards)
- State v. Ellsworth, 61 Neb. 444, 85 N.W. 439 (1901) (application of public-records principles to judicial records)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (limitations on broad claims of executive privilege and need for narrow, not expansive, privileges)
- In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162, 972 N.E.2d 1022 (2012) (formulation of the judicial deliberations privilege adopted and cited for scope)