Maysoun Batley v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20241896)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 17, 2024 SPR24/1896 Christine M. Wilda Records Access Officer University of Massachusetts Amherst 341 Whitmore Administration Building 181 President’s Drive Amherst, MA 01003 Dear Ms. Wilda: I have received the petition of Maysoun Batley appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts Amherst (University) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 25, 2024, Ms. Batley requested “incident report number 24-296-AR. Date of alleged offense is 05/07/2024.” The Department responded on July 1, 2024, denying the request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Batley petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/1896, was opened as a result. While this appeal was ending, the University provided a supplemental response on July 16, 2024. 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

Christine M. Wilda SPR24/1896 Page 2 July 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 University’s July 1st and July 16th Responses In its July 1, 2024 response, the University cites 950 C.M.R. 32.08 (2)(b), and states the following: With respect to your request, the Department intends to withhold/deny the requested records (report #24-296-AR) due to the applicability of the following exemptions or the reasons set forth below: Your specific report should be requested through the normal discovery process or after arraignment at the District Court. Additionally, in its July 16, 2024 response, the University states the following: Specific to the response, Ms. Batley requested an arrest report (24-296-AR), in which she is the named defendant. Pursuant to this report, the Department has submitted an application for complaint with the Eastern Hampshire District Court summonsing Ms. Batley on four charges. Ms. Batley’s show cause hearing date was scheduled for July 19, 2024, and has since been rescheduled to August 9, 2024. Because Ms. Batley is a named defendant and the court case has not yet reached show cause or arraignment, the Department maintains that this report is not yet subject to public record disclosure. In addition, we have advised Ms. Batley that her report may be requested through the normal discovery process at the Eastern Hampshire 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. Based on the information provided in the University’s July 1st and July 16th responses, the University has not demonstrated how the requested records are the subjects of dispute in active litigation. Specifically, the University has not provided a docket number or other documentation referring to the possible litigation discussed in its response. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). The University must clarify this.

Christine M. Wilda SPR24/1896 Page 3 July 17, 2024 Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. In this case, the University’s responses did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Based on the University’s responses, it is unclear which exemption the University is claiming in order to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the University is ordered to provide Ms. Batley 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: Maysoun Batley Ian Cyr, Deputy Chief of Police