Bradshaw, Joseph v. Office of the Worcester County District Attorney (SPR 20140257)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords May 13,2014 SPR14/257 Christopher P. Hodgens, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Office of the Worcester County District Attorney 255 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Hodgens: I have received the petition of Joseph Bradshaw appealing the response of the Worcester County District Attorney's Office (DAO) to his public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Bradshaw requested copies of records regarding several criminal cases. In your response, you refused to provide responsive records citing Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(c)(4) and G. L. c. 213 §3 as they operate through Exemption (a). Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a) A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney General v. Collector ofLynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Christopher P. Hodgens, Esq. SPR14/257 Page Two May 13,2014 A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. G. L. c. 213 §3 authorizes the courts to make and promulgate uniform codes of rules, consistent with law, for regulating the practice and conducting the business of such courts. Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(c)(4) involves matters of when the court may order post-conviction discovery. I find neither Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(c)(4) nor G. L. c. 213 §3 expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect the requested records under the Public Records Law is restricted. You also cite to Bougas v. Chief of police ofLexington, 371 Mass 59, 64 (1976) as means of restricting access to public records. The court in Bougas stated that the fact that an individual seeking access to records had been charged with criminal offenses neither detracts from nor lends support to the request of those plaintiffs for disclosure under G. L. c. 66, § 10. The court found that Exemption (f), the investigatory exemption, applied to certain records regardless of whether the requestor was intimately involved with the subject matter of the records he seeks or merely motivated by idle curiosity, further explaining that such records, if exempt from disclosure pursuant to an applicable exemption to the public records law, should be sought through the normal procedures in criminal cases where its availability lies in the discretion of the trial judge under standards developed by this court. Id at 64. The DAO has not claimed Exemption (f) or any other exemption that may apply in restricting access to requested records. I find this portion of your argument to be without merit. The DAO has yet to meet its burden in proving with specificity why certain requested records have not been made available and has not met its burden in explaining why responsive records cannot be provided. The DAO is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days to provide Mr. Bradshaw with the requested records, or provide to Mr. Bradshaw and this office, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. If the DAO is planning to charge Mr. Bradshaw for the cost of complying with this public records request he must be provided with a revised detailed written, good faith estimate on each particular request prepared in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. See G. L. c. 66, § 10; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.00. Failure to comply with this administrative order may result in the filing of a complaint for enforcement in the Superior Court by Mr. Bradshaw. This appeal is now closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Joseph Bradshaw