Joseph P. Schmitt v. Department of Correction - Legal Division (SPR 20201733)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 30, 2020 SPR20/1733 Donna Swanson Records Access Officer Department of Correction 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Swanson: I have received the petition of Joseph Schmitt appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on August 24, 2020, Mr. Schmitt requested, "(1) name of the county/court in which Vernon Thompson (M126632) is being petitioned out of, G.L. c. 123A, § 12; (2) police record for Vernon Thompson (Ml26632); and (3) petitioning QE report for Vernon Thompson (M126632); (4) all population waiver forms [the requester] … sign[ed] regarding all incidents with Vernon Thompson (Ml26632); (5) all incident reports associated with abuse-noted population reports; (6) all medical records/medical incident reports regarding the assault upon me by Vernon Thompson (Ml26632).” Unsatisfied with the response from the Department, Mr. Schmitt appealed and SPR20/1733 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 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

Donna Swanson SPR20/1733 Page 2 September 30, 2020 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 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. The Department’s August 28, 2020 Response In its August 28th response, the Department denied the request pursuant to Exemption (a), the Criminal Record Offender Information (CORI) Act, and Exemption (c) of the Public Records law. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either "shall not be a public record," "shall be kept confidential" or "shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law." The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its August 28th response, the Department states, “… [t]hese records are governed by the Criminal Offender Records Information Act.” ("CORI"). See G.L. c. 6, § 167, et seq., and 103 DOC 153, CORI Regulations.” The current definition of CORI is as follows: "Criminal offender record information", records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge,

Donna Swanson SPR20/1733 Page 3 September 30, 2020 an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 is adjudicated as an adult, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167 (emphasis added). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First clause of Exemption (c) medical The first clause creates a categorical exemption for personnel and medical information that relates to an identifiable individual and is of a "personal nature." Id. at 434. Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual is exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306,308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person's body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). Second clause of Exemption (c) - Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public's right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v.

Donna Swanson SPR20/1733 Page 4 September 30, 2020 Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm'r of Real Property Dep't, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Inc. (PETA) v. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. ---------------------------- App. Ct. 415, 428 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its response, the Department states, “…these documents may contain personal data …” Burden of specificity in responding and claiming exemptions Pursuant to the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the records custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper ----------------- Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the responsive records, in their entirety, are exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Where possible, the Department must produce any non-exempt segregable portions of the records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department's response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Instead, the Department's response cites Exemption (a) and the CORI statute, as well as Exemption (c) without any further explanation as to the exemption's applicability to the requested records. Despite the Department’s response, it remains unclear what responsive records the Department possesses. The Department must identify what records it has in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to Mr. Schmitt’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4) (a records access officer must provide a written response that identifies the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold).

Donna Swanson SPR20/1733 Page 5 September 30, 2020 As a result, I find that the Department did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Schmitt with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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 Record cc: Joseph Schmitt