David G. Magraw v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20220477)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 11, 2022 SPR22/0477 Meagen K. Monahan, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Primary Records Access Officer Norfolk District Attorney's Office 45 Shawmut Road Canton, MA 02021 Dear Attorney Monahan: I have received a petition from David G. Magraw appealing the response of the Office of the Norfolk District Attorney (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 7, 2021, Mr. Magraw requested various categories of records concerning the Office. Prior appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR21/3381 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 13, 2022). The Office responded on February 8, 2022. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Magraw petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0477, 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 agency or municipality 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 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

Meagen K. Monahan, Esq. SPR22/0477 Page 2 March 11, 2022 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. Status of the requestor; reason for the request 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of - - - - Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Mr. Magraw’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. Where, Mr. Magraw seeks the record for a court process, he may have a unique right of access to the records through statutory, regulatory, judicial or other applicable means. See Commonwealth v. Wanis, 426 Mass. 639 (1998). As such, Mr. Magraw may wish to consider another means of seeking to obtain any existing responsive records. The Office’s February 8th Response In its February 8th response, the Office stated that “…[o]n January 14, 2022, Attorney Cormier informed this Office that you would be proceeding pro se with respect to prosecuting your most recently filed new trial motion, discovery motions, and requests for public documents independent of Attorney Cormier's screening work. Please find enclosed the NDAO's October 21, 2021 letter to Attorney Cormier, which addresses the matter of post-conviction discovery and the provision of case materials to your counsel. The October 21, 2021 letter concerns post- conviction discovery of the same witnesses that your January 19, 2022 public records references. Based on your request, I understand that you have already received a copy of these materials through your attorney.” In light of the Office’s February 8th response, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Magraw may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: David G. Magraw