Peter J. Riordan, Esq. v. Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children, f/k/a Massachusetts Hospital School (SPR 20160977)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords November 10, 2016 SPR16/977 Brian V. Devin, CEO Office ofthe Chief Executive Officer Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children 3 Randolph Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Mr. Devin: I have received the petition of Peter J. Riordan, Esq. of Jantzen & Associates, P.C. appealing the response of the Massachusetts Hospital School, now known as the Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children (Hospital) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Attorney Riordan requested copies of four categories of records related to an incident that is of interest to his client. The Hospital responded to this request, providing redacted records. Attorney Riordan appealed. Status ofthe requester and reason for the request In the materials presented to this office Attorney Riordan references the relationship between his firm and his client. Attorney Riordan is advised that the status of his client has no bearing whatsoever on access to records under the Public Records Law. The right of requesters to inspect and obtain copies of public records is a clear statutory mandate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 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." The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that while a party's access to records may be limited by the Public Records Law; that does not mean that a party cannot obtain the same records through discovery processes. Commonwealth v. Wanis, 426 Mass. 639(1998). It may be more advantageous for Attorney Riordan to obtain the unredacted portion of responsive records through this process, as the Public Records Law treats all requesters alike. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Mr. Brian V. Devin, CEO SPR16/977 Page 2 November 10,2016 Prior appeal-failure to respond to a request for records The records that are the subject of the current appeal were requested by Attorney Riordan on August 18, 2016. When no response was provided, this office intervened and the Hospital provided a response to Attorney Riordan. See SPR16/857 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 20, 20 16). Exemption (c) -failure to provide specificity The Hospital provided redacted records, citing the privacy exemption to the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c). In its response the Hospital failed to provide any specificity to support this exemption claim. It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. Order I find the Hospital has failed to cite the specific applicability of an exemption to redacted records. Accordingly, the Hospital is hereby ordered to provide Attorney Riordan with a supplemental response regarding the redaction records, prepared in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec. state.ma. us. cc: Peter J. Riordan, Esq.