Melissa Granese v. Cambridge Health Alliance (SPR 20232038)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2023 SPR23/2038 Andrew M. Fuqua, Esq. General Counsel and Records Access Officer Cambridge Health Alliance Executive Offices 1493 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Attorney Fuqua: I have received the petition of Melissa M. Granese appealing the response of the Cambridge Health Alliance (CHA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 15, 2023, Ms. Granese requested “…a copy of the following records: [a]ll CHA employee emails and documents pertaining to/regarding/ mentioning [an identified person] from August 16, 2021 to Present date. Please exclude any correspondence to/from [the identified person’s] CHA email…as those emails are already in- hand.” On August 28, 2023, the CHA provided Ms. Granese with a response, denying the request in its entirety pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. As a result, Ms. Granese petitioned the Supervisor of Records, and this appeal was opened. While this appeal was pending, the CHA provided a supplemental response on September 11, 2023. Purpose of request; identity of requestor Ms. Granese is advised, 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 requesters. Access to a record requested pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, a requestor’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 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

Andrew M. Fuqua, Esq. SPR23/2038 Page 2 September 12, 2023 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. Current appeal In her August 28th petition, Ms. Granese asserted, “[t]he reasoning is I don’t agree with the denial as the personal information is directly my own personal information. Also, if needed some information could’ve [been] redacted.” The CHA’s September 11th Supplemental Response Based on a September 11, 2023 telephone conversation and email to a senior attorney in the Public Records Division, this office learned that Ms. Granese filed an administrative action against the CHA with a federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Said administrative action is entitled, Melissa Granese v. Cambridge Health Alliance, Federal Court Docket No. 523-2023-00506. Pending administrative matter 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 with the EEOC, I decline to opine on this matter 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).

Andrew M. Fuqua, Esq. SPR23/2038 Page 3 September 12, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Melissa M. Granese