Brian Steeley v. Springfield, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20191764)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records

September 13, 2018 SPR19/1764

Andrea Stone

Public Records Coordinator

City of Springfield, City Clerk’s Office 36 Court Street, Room 123

Springfield, MA 01103

Dear Ms, Stone:

I have received the petition of Brian Steeley appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.LR. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Steeley requested “[a]pplication for renewal of LTC, for [identified individual] filed on or about April 12, 2019. I request the complete file.” (emphasis in original),

Previous appeal

This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR19/1456 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 5, 2019). In my August 5" determination I ordered the City to provide Mr. Steeley with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations,

The City responded on August 22, 2019. Mr. Steeley appealed and SPR19/1764 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, § 10A(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),

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(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

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

Andrea Stone SPR19/1764 Page 2 September 13, 2019

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,

Purpose of request

Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors, Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976).

Current appeal

The City initially responded on June 26, 2019 by denying access to records under Exemption (j) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(j). In his previous appeal petition Mr. Steeley referenced, in part, a portion of G. L. c. 66, § 10B in support of his position that he is entitled to a copy of the requested record. In my August 5" determination I found that although Exemption (j) may apply to the type of responsive records at issue, the City must explain whether Mr. Steeley is entitled to these records under G. L. c. 66, § 10B.”

In its August 22" response the City asserts “[t]he City must deny your request because it believes that the requested records are exempt from disclosure as public records pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(j) as further explained below. .. .” The City includes the statutory language of Exemption (j). You also indicate “[s]pecifically the City believes that even if the name and address are redacted, the requester knows with certainty that the requested records pertain to a named individual].] For that reason, the City is withholding the report in its entirety.” You further note “[t]he requested records should be obtained through the Springfield District Court as a part of the discovery process.”

Exemption (j)

Exemption (j) of the Public Records Law permits a records custodian to withhold or redact portions of records containing:

the names and addresses of any persons contained in, or referred to in, any applications for any licenses to carry or possess firearms issued pursuant to chapter one hundred and forty or any firearms identification cards issued

pursuant to said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on sales or transfers of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, or machine guns or ammunition therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on said licenses or cards

Andrea Stone SPR19/1764 Page 3 September 13, 2019

G.L.c. 4, § 7 (26)(j).

The purpose of Exemption (j) is to prevent individuals with devious motives from ascertaining the identities of those who possess firearms. The scope of the exemption is limited to restricting the public disclosure of the name and address of the individual. A records custodian may withhold an entire firearms record if the requestor knows with certainty that this particular record pertains to a specific address or individual. See id.; see also G. L. c. 140, §§ 121-131P.

In his appeal petition Mr. Steeley again references G. L, c. 66, § 10B in support of his position that he is entitled to a copy of the requested record.

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 his appeal petition Mr. Steeley indicates he seeks his own application and notes “I have requested judicial review in the Springfield District Court, docket # 1923CV943.”

In light of the above-referenced proceeding that involves the application Mr. Steeley seeks in his request, it is my determination that the records at issue in this appeal are the subject of a dispute in active litigation. In order to avoid interfering with an ongoing judicial proceeding in which the requested records are involved, I decline to opine further on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in status of the judicial proceeding may impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

It should be noted that the discovery process and the Public Records Law are two distinct and independent avenues for gaining access to records, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that while a party’s access to records may be limited by the Public Records Law, this may not preclude obtaining the records through discovery. Commonwealth v. Wanis, 426 Mass. 639 (1998). As such, Mr. Steeley may wish to consider another means of seeking to obtain any existing responsive records,

Sincerely,

Rebecca S. Mur Mauna

ray Supervisor of Records

ce: Brian Steeley