Andrew Ryan v. Bristol County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20192016)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords October 17, 2019 SPR19/2016 Mary Lee, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney - Bristol District 868 Purchase Street, P.O. Box 973 New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Lee: I have received the petition of Andrew Ryan of the Boston Globe appealing the response of the Office of the District Attorney-Bristol District (DAO) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Todd Wallack of the Boston Globe requested "any and all records" pertaining to Aaron Hernandez. Mr. Wallack specified categories of records that should be included with the requested records. Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPRl 7/706 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 26, 2017); SPRl 7/801 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 28, 2017); SPRl 7/986 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 2, 2017); SPRl 7/1144 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 6, 2017); SPRl 7/1404 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 18, 2017); SPRl 7/1664 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 15, 2017); SPRl 8/021 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 19, 2018, February 21, 2018); SPR18/652 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 22, 2018); SPR18/2097 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 10, 2018); SPR19/677 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 10, 2019); SPR19/943 .Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 22, 2019). In my May 2211d determination I found the DAO had not met its burden to show how a 2014 Court Order operated through an exemption to the Public Records Law to allow for the withholding of the remaining responsive records. I ordered the DAO to provide Mr. Wallack responsive records in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. This office referred this order to the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) for enforcement. One Ashbmion Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Mary Lee, Esq. SPR19/2016 Page 2 October 17, 2019 As detailed in a September 3, 2019 letter from Assistant Attorney General Carrie Benedon, Director of the Division of Open Government, the Boston Globe filed a motion in Superior Court to terminate or clarify the 2014 Order" ... and on July 22, 2019, the Superior Court (McGuire, J.) allowed the Globe's motion, and terminated the 2014 Order." Attorney Benedon noted that "[t]hereafter, on August 20, after further communication with Mr. Wallack, the DAO produced a first batch of responsive records, and stated that it intends to produce another batch of records by September 4." Current appeal In his current appeal petition Mr. Ryan references the response from the DAO dated August 20th. In this response the DAO provided 56 pages ofrecords as the first installment of responsive rec.ords. This response also explained that the DAO is withholding certain records under various exemptions to the Public Records Law. Specifically, the DAO indicated it is withholding the following categories of records: statements of identifiable witnesses; work product; autopsy records and photographs of deceases persons; individual privacy rights; records obtained by means of a search warrant; records, videos and photographs seized by consent; grand jury materials; records of immunity proceedings; and impounded records. In his appeal petition Mr. Ryan indicates, in paii, "I am filing this appeal because I do not believe the District Attorney's Aug. 20, 2019 response complies with the requirements of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Moreover, the DAO has delayed in providing the records [it] concedes are not exempt beyond the time frame that is permissible under the Public Records Law." He also describes his objections to the DAO's exemption claims. Subsequent to the opening of the appeal, the DAO provided a supplemental response on October 7, 2019. In this response you indicate "[i]t appears that at least one of the packages of documents from this office to Mr. Wallack/Mr. Ryan has not been delivered by the post office. I have provided the cover letters from September 4 and 18 and October 2 to demonstrate that this office is diligently attempting to provide public records as quickly as can be allowed, consistent with the need for individual assessment ofthe records and necessary redaction. To date, this office has mailed 659 pages of public records." You further note that "[t]he requestor, Mr. Wallack, has agreed to installments of the public records. This office has provided records in accordance with that agreement four times thus far, at least two of which have reached Mr. Wallacks' designee, Mr. Ryan. If Mr. Ryan has not yet received the other two installments, I will resend them." The DAO also addresses Mr. Ryan's objections to the DAO's exemption claims. Whereas the DAO's supplemental response explains that it has provided additional records, is continuing to provide Mr. Ryan installments of responsive records, and provides additional information regarding its exemption claims, I will consider this appeal closed. Mr. Ryan may appeal the substantive nature of the DAO's October t 11 response within 90 days. Further, Mr. Ryan may appeal if he does not receive the remaining responsive records in a timely manner. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Mary Lee, Esq. SPR19/2016 Page 3 October 17, 2019 Sincerely,· ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Ryan