Stephanie Gates v. Essex District Attorney's Office (SPR 20210655)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 31, 2021 SPR21/0655 David O’Sullivan, Esq. Essex County District Attorney’s Office 10 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Attorney O’Sulivan: I have received the petition of Stephanie Gates appealing the response of the Essex County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 10, 2020, Ms. Gates requested “. . . copies of all records pertaining to the investigation of the extreme bullying incidents at the Coffin School in Marblehead, MA during the fall 2018.” Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR21/0345 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 26, 2021). In my February 26th determination, I found the Office had not met its burden to withhold responsive records under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. Accordingly, I ordered the Office to provide Ms. Gates with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Subsequently, the Office provided a response on March 13, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Ms. Gates petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/0655, was opened as a result. Purpose of request; identity of requestor 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). Accordingly, Ms. Gates’ purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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

David O’Sullivan, Esq. SPR21/0655 Page 2 March 31, 2021 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 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Office’s March 13th response In its March 13, 2021 response, the Office reiterates that the records are exempt from disclosure under Exemptions (c) and (f). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under 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. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y 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 exemption 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

David O’Sullivan, Esq. SPR21/0655 Page 3 March 31, 2021 nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which 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, 427 (1988) ---------------------------- (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption 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 291. 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. Under Exemption (c), the Office asserts that “[w]here there are allegations of inappropriate touching by and between children, disclosure of this interview, and any reports explaining the nature of the alleged inappropriate touching, would clearly result in personal embarrassment for the children involved and their families.” The Office indicates that the “. . . remaining documents in this Office’s possession relating to these alleged incidents – scheduling emails, meeting worksheets, consent forms, and referral and closeout sheets – all reference the children involved in these alleged incidents, and therefore also fall under the scope of the ‘privacy’ exemption.” Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure

David O’Sullivan, Esq. SPR21/0655 Page 4 March 31, 2021 would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-290. Under Exemption (f), the Department asserts that “. . . disclosure of the interview of the child, and any reports created as a result of these allegations, would directly contradict one of the underpinnings of the ‘investigatory’ exemption, namely, ‘the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely [] concerning matters under investigation.’ Rafuse v. Stryker, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 595, 600-601 (2004).” The Department posits that “[t]here is no reasonably segregable portion of the material that is not subject to these exemptions. . . .” In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the exemption claims made by the Department to withhold responsive records, in their entirety, the Department must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the Department’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay.

David O’Sullivan, Esq. SPR21/0655 Page 5 March 31, 2021 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Stephanie Gates