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

Background

Les W. Veskrna requested Judicial Branch Education (JBE) materials (presentations, presenter identities, handouts, emails, contracts) on child custody/parenting time since July 1, 2012; State Court Administrator Corey Steel denied access claiming confidentiality.
Steel relied on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-205.01 and Neb. Ct. R. § 1-512(A) (and an unwritten Committee policy) asserting those authorize confidentiality for JBE records and invoked separation of powers and a judicial deliberative process privilege.
Veskrna sued for a writ of mandamus under the Nebraska public records statutes, seeking disclosure; both parties moved for summary judgment.
The district court conducted in camera review of 12 documents, concluded only one small portion was protected by the deliberative privilege and ordered disclosure (with one redaction), and awarded costs and fees.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held the statutory exception in § 84-712.01(1) was not satisfied by an unwritten Committee policy or by the mere statutory authorization to promulgate confidentiality rules, and that the particular JBE records 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 materials “public records” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.01?	Materials are public records; no statutory exemption applies.	JBE materials are not public records because another statute or policy expressly provides confidentiality.	Held: Materials are public records; statutory authorization to adopt confidentiality rules is not itself an express statutory exemption.
Does § 24-205.01 / court rule and the Committee’s unwritten policy exempt JBE records from disclosure?	N/A (Veskrna argues no exemption).	The Committee’s long‑standing unwritten policy and statutory language authorizing confidentiality mean records are not public.	Held: No—an unwritten policy and the Legislature’s delegation to the Court to adopt rules do not constitute a statute “expressly provid[ing]” nondisclosure.
Do separation-of-powers concerns or the judicial deliberative process privilege bar disclosure?	Disclosure does not impair judicial functions; requested items are administrative/educational, not internal deliberations.	Disclosure would intrude on judicial independence; deliberative privilege protects JBE materials.	Held: Narrow, absolute judicial deliberative privilege adopted but applies only to judges’ mental impressions and communications related to deliberation in particular cases; the reviewed JBE records largely fall outside the privilege and disclosure here does not unduly impair judicial functions.
Was mandamus relief and fee award appropriate?	Requested mandamus to compel disclosure; sought fees.	Opposed mandamus and fees.	Held: Mandamus ordering disclosure (with one redaction) and awarding costs/fees affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Unger v. State, 293 Neb. 549 (recognizing public records procedure and mandamus relief)
State v. Ellsworth, 61 Neb. 444 (public access to certain judicial records)
State, ex rel. Griggs v. Meeker, 19 Neb. 106 (historical support for public access to judicial records)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (limits on absolute privilege; balancing confidentiality and judicial process)
In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 (description of judicial deliberations privilege adopted and cited)