Craig P. Shibley v. Massachusetts Department of State Police (SPR 20212072)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 20, 2021 SPR21/2072 Keith A. Paquette, Esq. Staff Legal Counsel Massachusetts State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Attorney Paquette: I have received the petition of Mr. Craig P. Shibley appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 12, 2021, Mr. Shibley requested application submission dates and acceptance dates of five troopers who comprised the Unresolved Cases Unit (UCU); all UCU related emails from/to Trooper Keith Egan between October 1st - 6th (2019); and the number of cold cases the UCU has “activated” since October 2019. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR21/1851 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 6, 2021). SPR21/1851 was closed after this office was notified that the Department had provided a response on July 30, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Shibley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2072, 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

Keith A. Paquette, Esq. SPR21/2072 Page 2 August 20, 2021 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 Department’s July 30th Response In its July 30, 2021 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) stating, “[t]he Department asserts that application submissions dates contained in the employment application is personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. As such, the Department is denying your request to the employment application pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c).” 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 Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. Massachusetts courts have found that “core categories of personnel information that are ‘useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee’” may be withheld from disclosure. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). For example, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee,” may be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c). Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The courts have also discussed specific categories of records that may be redacted under Exemption (c). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Finance, Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). 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

Keith A. Paquette, Esq. SPR21/2072 Page 3 August 20, 2021 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 (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. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the submission dates in the employment applications are intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any responsive information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. As a result, I find that the Department did not satisfy its burden in withholding these records pursuant to Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Shibley with a response to the request, provided 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, .fl. l1 ~ ~ ~ -· ~0 ,cwu.,co.._. Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Craig P. Shibley Jennifer Staples, Esq.