§ 6-2104.Trial court procedure.
Article 21: Interim Rules on Livestreaming Proceedings in Nebraska Trial Courts · Last amended July 1, 2020 · Last verified July 22, 2026
Full Text of § 6-2104
Amendment History
§ 6-2104 adopted July 1, 2020.
Plain-English Summary
§ 6-2104 walks a judge through the mechanics of an already-authorized livestream. The default is simple: the proceeding convenes in open court with the stream running. From there, the rule builds in a process for the moments when someone wants that stream interrupted.
If counsel or a self-represented litigant asks to limit or close access because evidence is extremely sensitive or confidential, the court has to rule on the record before that evidence comes in — the person asking must describe the evidence and identify the specific overriding interest at stake, and the court should get every other party’s agreement or objection on the record too. A judge can also raise the issue without a party’s request, though the rule urges caution about doing so over a party’s objection.
Before halting or ending the stream, the court has to find on the record that protecting the evidence or witness outweighs the ordinary presumption of public presentation, and has to first consider real alternatives — taking testimony by affidavit, switching to audio only, blocking exhibits from screen-sharing, hearing a child witness in chambers, or a temporary pause. If the court opts for a lesser restriction instead of a full halt, it has to state a substantial reason and explain why nothing less restrictive would work. If it does halt or end the stream, it has to recite specific findings: the overriding interest, the particular testimony or evidence justifying closure, that access is being interrupted or ended, that no less restrictive option would suffice, and anything else § 6-204 requires. Everything else in the proceeding that does not clear this threshold stays on the livestream.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a livestreamed proceeding start with the stream already running?
Yes. The rule states the proceeding should convene publicly in open court with the livestream activated.
What has to happen before a court can pause a livestream for sensitive evidence?
The court must rule on the record before the evidence is admitted, after the movant describes the evidence and identifies the overriding interest that would be prejudiced.
What alternatives does a court have to consider before ending a livestream entirely?
Reducing testimony to affidavit, switching to audio-only streaming, prohibiting screen sharing of exhibits, taking testimony in chambers, or temporarily interrupting the livestream.
Can a judge stop a livestream without either party asking?
Yes, on the judge’s own initiative, though the rule advises courts to exercise caution in doing so over a party’s objection.
What findings does a judge have to state on the record before terminating a livestream?
The overriding interest at stake, the specific sensitive or confidential testimony or evidence, that access is being interrupted or terminated, and that no less restrictive means would suffice.
Does stopping the livestream for one witness end coverage of the whole proceeding?
No. Portions of the proceeding that do not independently meet the threshold for closure should continue with the livestream activated.