Sammy Nabulsi v. Longmeadow Public Schools (SPR 20191187)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords June 27, 2019 SPR19/1187 Dianne Georgantas Administrative Assistant Longmeadow Public Schools 535 Bliss Road Longmeadow, MA O1 106 Dear Ms. Georgantas: I have received the petition of Sammy Nabulsi, Esq. appealing the response of the Longmeadow Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Attorney Nabulsi requested 5 categories ofrecords related to other public records requests and communications related to certain circumstances involving the Superintendent. The School responded by providing records with portions redacted under Exemptions (a), (c), (d), (o) and the attorney-client privilege. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (d), (o). Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPRl 8/249 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 21, 2019). In my May 21st determination I ordered the School to provide Attorney Nabulsi with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The School responded in a letter dated May 28, 2019. Attorney Nabulsi appealed and SPRl 9/1187 was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). 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

Dianne Georgantas SPR19/1187 Page 2 June 27, 2019 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, § 1O (b )(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. 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. Current appeal The School has provided various responses to the request, including on January 18, 2019, February 6, 2019, and March 11, 2019. The School's February 6th response included redacted responsive records and cited Exemptions (a), (c), (d), (o) and the attorney-client privilege in support of the redactions. The School's March 11th response provides supplemental information regarding its exemption claims and includes indices that describe the basis of the redactions on each page. In my May 21st determination I found the School had not met its burden to show how the above referenced exemptions apply to the responsive records. On May 28t\ Attorney Regina Williams Tate of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP responded on behalf of the School. In this response Attorney Tate indicated "[a]t the time that Mr. Nebulsi submitted his public records' request, the School Committee and the Longmeadow Public Schools had a different law firm representing the School Committee. That firm, Valerio, Dominiello and Hillman, LLCdrafted the response to the public records' request and provided certain documents to Mr. Nebulsi." She further noted "[a]t this time, neither this firm nor the Longmeadow Public Schools has access to the files of Valerio, Dominiello and Hillman, and thus, are not privy to information including what documents were provided to Mr. Nebulsi, what documents were withheld, the basis for the claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege, and other relevant information." Attorney Tate explained that the School requested the files from Valerio, Dominiello and Hillman but as of the date of the letter, the School had not received the records. As a result, Attorney Tate asserted" ... as of this time, neither [t]his firm nor the Longmeadow Public Schools can comply with your order to provide Mr. Nebulsi with a response which is consistent with your order. The School Committee and the Longmeadow Public Schools do not wish to withhold from Mr. Nebulsi documents that are public records. Likewise, it wants to comply with your order in the time specified. It is just not feasible at this time." Attorney Nabulsi objects to this response and asserts that the School failed to comply with May 21st order. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal this office learned that Attorney Tate obtained the relevant records from Valerio, Dominiello and Hillman, LLC and intends to provide a supplemental response to Attorney Nabulsi. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Attorney Nabulsi with said response

Dianne Georgantas SPR19/1187 Page 3 June 27, 2019 in a manner consistent with this order, the May 21st order referenced above, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. 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. Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Sammy Nabulsi, Esq.