17 Neb.App. 292, 759 N.W.2d 499, 524 (2009) (quoting 27 C.J.S. Discovery § 91 at 177 (1999)) ("[Als a general rule, under statutes authorizing discovery no discovery can be required of documents of public record, as they are equally accessible to all parties."); see also Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 1380 (Fed.Cir.1991) ("For the Government to make requests which would require plaintiffs in turn to seek information from the Government itself, and then to seek dismissal with prejudice when plaintiffs failed to supply the Government with the information that the Government already had, seems a cruel joke."). This concept has been applied in the context of disclosures. See ISP Chemicals LLC v. Dutchland, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-153, 2011 WL 2651241, at *4-5 (W.D.Ky. July 6, 2011) (<HOLDING>). In addition, we apply this general rule in
holding that court can affirm administrative order only on grounds on which agency relied and noting that the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding holding that the state police is a state agency holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order holding that an agreed order with a state administrative agency was a public record and thus did not need to be disclosed