Tim Coco v. Haverhill, City of - Police Department (SPR 20190778)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords April 30, 2019 SPR19/778 Michele E. Randazzo, Esq. KP Law, PC. 101 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Randazzo: I have received the petition of Tim Coco of WHAVappealing the response of the Haverhill Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Coco requested "[a]ny and all correspondence, document, reports and/or investigations prepared by the Haverhill Police Department and/or Police Chief Alan DeNaro or subordinates related to recent anonymous letter(s) sen[t] to the city or any official regarding the Department of Public Works, Highway Department and/or related staff.'' Previous appeal ·This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPRl 8/2101 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (January 9, 2019; February 8, 2019); SPR19/447 Determination of the ih Supervisor of Records (March 7, 2019). In my March determination I found the Department met its burden to withhold certain information under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law; however, I also found it did not meet its burden to justify all the redactions made under Exemptions ( c) and ( d). I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Coco with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The Department responded to the order on April 1, 2019. Mr. Coco appealed and SPRl 9/778 was opened as a result. The Department's April 1st response The Department provided a redacted version of the record. In its April 1st response the Department provides additional information regarding its claims under Exemptions ( c) and ( d). 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

Michele E. Randazzo, Esq. SPR19/778 Page 2 April 30, 2019 Pending litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In its April 1st response you indicate " ... the City has recently been named as a Respondent in an administrative suit filed against it by a former employee at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ('MCAD'), Docket No. 19BEM00395." You note that" ... the complainant was interviewed as part of the investigation, and the individual's MCAD complaint directly implicates the matters addressed in the requested record. Information contained in the report can be used by the City to determine its defenses to the MCAD complaint, evaluate potential witness testimony, and craft the written response required by MCAD regulations to be submitted by the City." You further contend that "[i]t is the City's position, therefore, that the report contains the very type of information that would influence and shape the City's strategy with respect to the pending MCAD litigation, further supporting its decision to only release a redacted version of the report. to date." In light of the responsive report's connection to this pending matter with MCAD, it is my determination that the record at issue in this appeal is the subject of dispute in active litigation and/or administrative hearings. Accordingly, I decline to opine further on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this proceeding could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b ). Sincerely, ~ r a ~ Supervisor of Records cc: Tim Coco