Amadi Sosa v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20241478)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 30, 2024 SPR24/1478 Jeremy Saint Laurent, Esq. 1st Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield – Law Department 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Saint Laurent: I have received the petition of Amadi Sosa appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 8, 2023, Mr. Sosa requested, among other items, the following: Any/all report(s), witness interview(s), email(s), audio record of any interviews, transcripts pertaining to file #10-364-AR. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR24/0651 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 15, 2024) and SPR24/0963 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 11, 2024). In my April 11th determination, I ordered the City to clarify its claims for withholding records under G. L. c 119, § 60A, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Subsequently, the City responded on April 18, 2024, providing responsive records in redacted form, claiming the redacted information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Sosa further 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 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

Jeremy Saint Laurent, Esq. SPR24/1478 Page 2 May 30, 2024 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. 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 April 18th Response In its April 18, 2024 response, the City cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting the responsive arrest reports and narratives. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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). 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 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

Jeremy Saint Laurent, Esq. SPR24/1478 Page 3 May 30, 2024 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. In its April 18th response, under Exemption (c), the City argues that “the names of witnesses, juvenile suspects, dates of birth, social security numbers, street addresses, and any other personal information of a specifically named or documented individual were redacted.” Based on the City’s April 18th response, I find the City may permissibly redact social security numbers under Exemption (c). However, the City has not explained how the remaining redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the City did not provide additional 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. The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Sosa 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: Amadi Sosa