Laura H. Ortiz v. Dracut, Town of (SPR 20211605)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 13, 2021 SPR21/1605 Peter Bartlett Chief of Police Town of Dracut Police Department 110 Loon Hill Road Dracut, MA 01826 Dear Chief Bartlett: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz appealing the response of the Town of Dracut (Town) Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Ms. Ortiz requested: 1. Department records any/all responsive to [an identified person], for July 1, 2019-July 21, 2019 (regardless the location they exist in or device/other located on and regardless the format); 2. Department logs, emails, texts, notes, other any/all responsive and to/from [an identified [person], for July 1, 2019 - July 21, 2019 regardless if you name him or refer to him in any way (regardless the location they exist in or device/other located on and regardless the format); 3. Department as well as Dracut Fire Department records of policies for 911 calls, policies for recording information, policies for creating records in regards to 911 calls, policies for standard procedure for how a Trinity Ambulance is requested etc. in regards to anyone calling 911 from start of incident to completion of governmental services (regardless the location they exist in or device/other located on and regardless the format); and, 4. Department conjoined Dracut Fire Department Records any/all responsive to [an identified person], for July 1 2019 - July 21, 2019 (regardless the location they exist in or device/other located on and regardless the format). The Department provided Ms. Ortiz with a response on March 1, 2021, informing her it will provide any and all responsive documents that are not prohibited from release by statute or exemption. The Department cited Exemptions (c), (f) and the attorney-client privilege as potential exemptions that may be found while reviewing the records. The Department also filed a petition with the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) for an extension of time to provide Ms. 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

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR21/1605 Page 2 July 13, 2021 Ortiz with the responsive records. See SPR21/0523 Determination of the Supervisor (March 5, 2021). In my March 5th determination, I found that in light of the need to collect and segregate the request, as well as the potential scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, the Department established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(ii). I granted the Department an extension of 15 business days beyond the time allowed in G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (a municipality may provide a timeframe not to exceed 25 business days to produce responsive records). 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) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 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). Current appeal Ms. Ortiz was provided with records responsive to her request, including certain of the records in redacted format. Unsatisfied with the Department’s production of the records, Ms. Ortiz petitioned the Supervisor, and the current appeal was opened. In her petition, Ms. Ortiz asserts that the Department provided the records; however, did not provide a response or an index to account for the redaction of certain of the records. In addition, Ms. Ortiz questions whether she has been provided with all the records responsive to her request. Burden of specificity in responding; providing redacted records The Department provided Ms. Ortiz with redacted records without specifically explaining the exemption(s) in the Public Records Law that would support the withholding of the redacted content in those records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the 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 content within the responsive records is 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).

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR21/1605 Page 3 July 13, 2021 The Department must provide a detailed response to support the redaction of the records under an exemption or exemptions in the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). In addition, Ms. Ortiz asserts, “[w]e do appreciate what records the Town of Dracut made available, and their time and assistance in doing so…however, countless responsive records we know exist were not released unfortunately…” I find that it is unclear whether the Department and/or the Town is possession of additional records responsive to Ms. Ortiz’s request, or whether the Department and/or Town is withholding any records in their entirety. The Department and/or Town must clarify this issue. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Ortiz with a response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, 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, · ' ' . I - . . - ~ - . Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Ortiz