Manpreet Kaur, Esq. v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20220079)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 20, 2022 SPR22/0079 Stephen Roche, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Manpreet Kaur, Esq. appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 2, 2021, Attorney Kaur requested certain records relating to an identified incident. Previous Appeal The records sought were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR21/3310 Supervisor of Records Determination (January 4, 2022). There, I found it unclear whether the City had provided a response to Attorney Kaur and ordered the City to clarify that issue. The City provided Attorney Kaur with a response on January 11, 2022. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Kaur petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0079, 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

Attorney Stephen Roche SPR22/3310 Page 2 January 20, 2022 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 City’s January 11th Response On January 11, 2022, the City stated, “Personnel in the City's Emergency Communications Department have submitted copies of the attached Call for Services [also known as 911 calls] log(s) as being responsive to your request. Please note that sections of the log(s) were redacted pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7 (26)(c) also known as the ‘Privacy Exemption’, as further explained below…” Current Appeal In the current appeal, Attorney Kaur stated, “I appreciate what was provided to me but I specifically asked for [a named officer’s] notes. He took notes that evening during the escort of my client. He did not place anything into a police report and told me that the only way I can get any evidence of the same is by getting the notes themselves through the public records request. His superiors informed him of the same. I specifically stated the same in my records request.” It is unclear whether the City possesses notes from the named officer. The City must clarify this. Conclusion In light of the above, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Kaur with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. Attorney Kaur may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Manpreet Kaur, Esq.