Sean Sheridan v. Brockton, City of - Law Department (SPR 20221071)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 19, 2022 SPR22/1070; SPR22/1071 Allison M. Cogliano, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor 45 School Street - City Hall Brockton, MA 02301 Dear Attorney Cogliano: I have received the petitions of Sean Sheridan appealing the response of the City of Brockton (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 29, 2022, Mr. Sheridan requested the “… detailed phone bill of [identified person] from May 15, 2021 from 8pm through 8pm on Monday May 17, 2021 [and] detailed phone bill of [identified person] of the Police Department on May 15, 2021 from 8pm through 8pm on Monday May 17, 2021.” The City responded on May 9, 2022. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Sheridan petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR22/1070 and SPR22/1071, were 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 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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

Allison M. Cogliano, Esq. SPR22/1070; SPR22/1071 Page 2 May 19, 2022 The City’s May 9th response In its May 9th response, the City asserted that the request relates to “… an ongoing administrative proceeding before Wrentham District Court, docket no. 2157AC002188.” Pending litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1.the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In a conversation between a City representative and a senior attorney of the Public Records Division, the City confirmed that the matter is currently pending before the Wrentham District Court. See Sean Sheridan v. Chief Emanuel Gomes Docket No. 2157AC002188 and that the proceedings are related to the requested records. In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on these matters at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Sean Sheridan