Dean Carman v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20222108)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 28, 2022 SPR22/2108 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Dean Carman appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 6, 2022, Mr. Carman requested the following records: [1] any police report created for an incident that occurred on 8/29/2022 around 9:00 PM, at or near the shopping plaza containing the Panera Bread café on White Street. [2] the most recent police report or other official document issued that contains the name and address of [named person]. [3] the most recent police report issued that contains the name and address of [named person] and a male associate. The City responded on September 14, 2022. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Carman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/2108, 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. 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

Seah Levy SPR22/2108 Page 2 September 28, 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. 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 City’s September 14th response In its September 14, 2022 response, the City cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. In a conversation between a City representative and a senior attorney of the Public Records Division, the City advised that there is pending litigation and that the requested records are related to the proceedings. The City has advised that there exists two lawsuits, Commonwealth v. James Wright Docket No. 2252CR000914 and Commonwealth v. Ronald Edgehill, Docket No. 2252CR000955, both pending at Cambridge District Court. 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 light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I also decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) to the requested records. 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).

Seah Levy SPR22/2108 Page 3 September 28, 2022 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dean Carman Rebecca Rodman, Esq.