Andrew McIsaac v. Department of Mental Health (SPR 20220541)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 25, 2022 SPR22/0541 Olubunmi A. Olotu, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Mental Health 25 Staniford Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Olotu: I have received the petition of Andrew D. McIsaac appealing the response of the Department of Mental Health (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 17, 2021, Mr. McIsaac requested, “copies of the investigation reports” associated with named incidents reports. Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR21/3386 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 13, 2022); See SPR21/3386 (February 15, 2022,). In my February 15th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to redact certain records. I ordered the Department to provide a response to Mr. McIsaac. On March 4, 2022, the Department provided a response. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. McIsaac petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0541, 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.

Olubunmi A. Olotu, Esq. SPR22/0541 Page 2 March 25, 2022 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. The Department’s March 4th response In its March 4th response the Department provided the requested records with redactions. The Department justified the redactions under Exemptions (a), (c), and (f). Current appeal Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a 2019 case, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). I find that the basis of Mr. McIsaac’ appeal is unclear. Mr. McIsaac is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Attempts to reach out to Mr. McIsaac to specify which redactions were at issue in the appeal were unsuccessful. Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Mr. McIsaac may wish to clarify his specific objections to the Department’s response. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew D. McIsaac