Quan Doe v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20232988)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 27, 2023 SPR23/2988 Mark Relation, Esq. Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 225 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Quan Doe appealing the response of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 29, 2023, Quan Doe requested the following records concerning three named employees: commissions, surety bonds/insurance, Financial statements and earrings [sic] FARA disclosures and any possible membership/ corporate conflicting interests in organizations/ businesses for the above described parties. In citing any lawfully afforded redactions, please supply the rationale for each specific expungement as to ascertain the Constitutional lawfulness of its removal. The Office responded on December 1, 2023, indicating it does not possess responsive records. Unsatisfied with the office’s response, Quan Doe appealed, and this case 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR23/2988 Page 2 December 27, 2023 Att’y 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 Office’s December 1st Response In its December 1, 2023 response, the Office states that “there are no records that meet the parameters of [Quan Does’] request.” In the appeal petition, Quan Doe contends that the Office possesses records responsive to the request. Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In an email to this office on December 21, 2023, the Office confirmed that it has “no responsive record that meet the parameters of this request.” Conclusion Where the Office confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to Quan Doe’s request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Quan Doe