Christian Baillet v. Office of the District Attorney - Plymouth District (SPR 20160319)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords May 24,2016 SPR16/319 Ms. Gail M. McKenna, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney - Plymouth County 32 Belmont Street Brockton, MA 023 01 Dear Attorney McKenna: I have received the petition of Christian Baillet, Esq. of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) appealing the response of the Office of the District Attorney Plymouth County (District Attorney) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Attorney Baillet requested a copy of: 1. Any documents which outline the method by which victim witness advocates are hired, 2. Any documents that purport to describe the job duties of victim witness advocates, 3. Any documents that outline the policies and procedures that prescribe or proscribe the manner in which victim witness advocates carry out their job duties, 4. Any documents or complaints against the above named victim witness advocates, and 5. Any records or documents regarding internal disciplinary actions taken against victim witness advocates. Prior Appeal-SPRJ61118 This request was the subject of a previous appeal, and the District Attorney had a January 29, 2016 telephone discussion with Mr. Baillet regarding the public records fees applicable to the request pursuant to the Public Records Law regarding search, possible segregation and copies under the Public Records Law Access Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.06. You also provided Attorney Baillet with a March 1, 2016 written response. See SPR16/118 Determination of the Supervisor ofRecords (March 9, 2016). OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. Gail M. McKenna, Esq. SPR16/319 Page2 May 24,2016 Subject ofthis appeal, SPR16/319 On March 14,2016, Attorney Baillet sent a second public records request, identical to the request that was the subject of SPR16/118. Attorney Baillet disputes the District Attorney's explanation of the estimate previously discussed on January 29, 2016 that it may be necessary to redact certain of the responsive records pursuant to exemptions in the Public Records Law. Attorney Baillet states in his second request to the District Attorney for the identical records that such information is not exempt from disclosure as personnel or medical files or information under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Attorney Baillet suggests that his status as an attorney and an employee of the Commonwealth through employment with CPCS creates a higher right of access to the records than any other individual requesting these records. Status oft he Requester Attorney Baillet should be advised that the Public Records Law does not distinguish between requesters. As an attorney for a government entity, he has no greater right of access to the responsive records under the Public Records Law than any other individual in the public realm. The right of requesters to inspect and obtain copies ofpublic records is a clear statutory mandate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( a); (any person may receive or inspect a copy of a public record). see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976) (the public records statute does not provide a "standing requirement" but extends the right to examine to "any person" whether intimately involved with the subject matter of the records he seeks or merely motivated by idle curiosity." Accordingly, Attorney Baillet's request is subject to the exemptions in the Public Records Law and to the fees in the Public Records Access Regulations (Regulations). See 950 C.M.R. 32.06 (fees for public records). Waiver of Fees Attorney Baillet requested a waiver of all applicable fees in the Regulations for complying with the request under the Public Records Law. While the Public Records Law suggests that a custodian waive fees pursuant to the Public Records Law where the request is in the public interest, this Office has no authority to mandate that a custodian do so. It is my understanding that Attorney Baillet was advised by the District Attorney in January 2016 that a more advantageous method of request may be better suited in this circumstance in an effort to reduce fees. On May 19, 2016, you informed an attorney on my staff that you would send Attorney Baillet an additional written response to clarify any outstanding issues regarding Attorney Baillet's request. It is my understanding that Mr. Baillet was provided with an additional response to his March 2016 public records request.

Ms. Gail M. McKenna, Esq. SPR16/319 Page 3 May 24,2016 Accordingly, whereas the District Attorney has provided Attorney Baillet a written response to his second request for the responsive records, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. To assist in requesting and in responding to requests for public records I advise a review of our publication, A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This document is available on the Internet, free of charge, at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf. Attorneys and other members of my staff are available during regular business hours to answer general questions regarding the Public Records Law. In addition, members of my staff will visit a records custodian in person to conduct training workshops on the Public Records Law upon request. Please contact my office directly at the telephone number provided in this determination for further information. illiams cc: Christian Baillet, Esq.