Colman Herman v. Cannabis Control Commission (SPR 20240003)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 17, 2024 SPR24/0003 Michael P. Bergquist, Esq. Associate General Counsel Cannabis Control Commission Union Station 2 Washington Square Worcester, MA 01604 Dear Attorney Bergquist: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of the Cannabis Control Commission (Commission) 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, Mr. Herman requested “any and all invoices submitted to the Cannabis Control Commission by outside law firms for the period January 1, 2023 to the present.” The Commission responded on December 20, 2023, providing records in redacted form, and claiming the responsive records were redacted pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law and the attorney-client privilege. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Herman 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. 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

Michael P. Bergquist, Esq. SPR24/0003 Page 2 January 17, 2024 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 Commission’s December 20th Response In its December 20, 2023 response, the Commission provides Mr. Herman with “twenty- one (21) records that contains all such invoices which are responsive to [the] request and subject to disclosure.” The Commission cites Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, and the attorney-client privilege for redacting the invoices. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Massachusetts courts have found that “core categories of personnel information that are ‘useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee’” may be withheld from disclosure. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). For example, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee,” may be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c). Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The courts have also discussed specific categories of records that may be redacted under Exemption (c). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Fin., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is a balancing test which provides that where the

Michael P. Bergquist, Esq. SPR24/0003 Page 3 January 17, 2024 public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Under Exemption (c), the Commission argues that “the records were redacted to the extent that they contained information related to personnel matters or information that would allow the reader to identify personnel in relation to internal personnel matters.” Based on the Commission’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Also, the Commission did not provide information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Commission must clarify these matters. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. Under Exemption (f), the Commission argues that “the records were redacted where investigatory materials would be disclosed that would prejudice the investigation by alerting the subjects to the activities of investigatory officials.”

Michael P. Bergquist, Esq. SPR24/0003 Page 4 January 17, 2024 Based on the Division’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute investigatory materials. It is additionally not certain how the records pertain to an ongoing investigation. Further, the Division did not demonstrate how disclosure of the redacted information “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest” as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). The Division must clarify these matters. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege, the Supervisor of Records “shall not inspect the record but shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In its December 20th response, the Commission states that “the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has recognized that confidential communications between government entities and their legal counsel are protected under the normal rules of the attorney-client privilege,” and argues the following: [T]he records were redacted where information regarding confidential matters were discussed. Billing records are an attorney work product that is part and parcel to the distribution of legal advice. The Commission has made its best efforts to disclose information however the nature of an invoice for legal assistance necessarily requires that the information contained therein be privileged. Based on the Commission’s response, it is unclear which portions of the records have been redacted pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the Commission must provide an index comprised of a detailed description of each record redacted pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of each record, and the grounds upon which the privilege is being claimed. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Further, the Commission must clarify whether the communications were made during

Michael P. Bergquist, Esq. SPR24/0003 Page 5 January 17, 2024 the course of the client’s search for legal advice, were made in confidence, and that the privilege as to the communications has not been waived. Suffolk at 450. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is ordered to provide Mr. Herman with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman