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

Background

Les W. Veskrna requested Judicial Branch Education (JBE) records (materials, presenter identities, communications) about child custody/parenting-time programs since July 1, 2012; State Court Administrator Corey Steel denied access.
Steel asserted an unwritten Committee policy keeping all JBE records confidential and relied on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-205.01 and court rule authority to develop confidentiality rules.
Veskrna sued for a writ of mandamus under the Nebraska public records statute, seeking disclosure; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The district court reviewed 12 documents in camera, ordered disclosure of all but a redacted portion of one judge’s email, and awarded costs and attorney fees.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held the statutory exception did not apply absent adopted court rules, rejected a broad confidentiality claim, adopted a narrowly tailored judicial deliberations privilege, and found the JBE records at issue not covered by that privilege.

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; public-records statutes apply to the judiciary.	Records are not public because another statute or policy makes them confidential.	Held: Records are public; statutory exception in § 84-712.01(1) does not apply absent an express statute or adopted court rule.
Does § 24-205.01 or an unwritten Committee policy exempt JBE records from disclosure?	No—no adopted rules exist and an unwritten policy cannot create a statutory exemption.	§ 24-205.01 and court rule authority recognize confidentiality and permit the Committee’s policy to exclude records.	Held: Rejection of Steel’s argument; legislative recognition of rulemaking authority is not an express statutory prohibition on disclosure; no adopted rule existed.
Does disclosure violate separation of powers by unduly interfering with judicial functions?	Disclosure of these materials does not impair the judiciary’s essential functions.	Mandatory disclosure would intrude on the judiciary’s inherent administrative authority and impair judicial independence.	Held: Disclosure of the specific JBE records would not meaningfully impair judicial functions; separation-of-powers concern does not bar disclosure here.
Do the judicial deliberations privilege or related privileges protect these JBE records?	Most JBE materials are not privileged because they do not reveal judge mental impressions in particular cases.	Judicial deliberative privilege applies broadly to JBE materials because education is intertwined with judges’ deliberations.	Held: Court adopts a narrowly tailored, absolute judicial deliberations privilege protecting judges’ internal mental impressions and intra-judicial deliberations in particular cases; the exhibit records do not fall within that privilege (one email was redacted).

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549 (recognition of mandamus under public-records statute)
State v. Ellsworth, 61 Neb. 444 (application of public disclosure to judicial records)
State, ex rel. Griggs v. Meeker, 19 Neb. 106 (historical support for public access to court records)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (limits on absolute executive privilege; guidance on narrowly construing confidentiality exceptions)
In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 (description of judicial deliberations privilege adopted by the Court)