Samantha McIsaac v. Agawam, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20242643)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 2, 2024 SPR24/2643 Sergeant Christopher Soto Records Sergeant Agawam Police Department 681 Springfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Dear Sergeant Soto: I have received the petition of Attorney Samantha McIsaac, of Michael Kelly Injury Lawyers, appealing the response of the Agawam Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 6, 2024, Attorney James Duphily, also of Michael Kelly Injury Lawyers, requested “an unredacted report” of a specified January 18, 2020 incident. On September 11, 2024, Attorney McIsaac expanded the scope of the request to include “everything for the above-referenced case.” The Department responded to both requests on September 12, 2024, and September 17, 2024, providing numerous records in redacted form, and claiming that the records are redacted pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Attorney McIsaac petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/2643, 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 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

Sergeant Christopher Soto SPR24/2643 Page 2 October 2, 2024 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 Department’s September 12th and September 17th Responses In its September 12 and September 17, 2024 responses, the Department provides numerous responsive records in redacted form, and cites Exemptions (a), (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law for redacting the records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). In her appeal petition, among other things, Attorney McIsaac indicates that the requested records are related to civil litigation, and explains that “depositions are set for September 24th and 25th and a trial is set for November 18th, 2024.” 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. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of the request, is active and ongoing in the Massachusetts Superior Court. See Brielle Browne-Walsh vs. John Dolan, et al., (Hampden County Superior Court Docket No. 2279-CV-00291 (Sept. 27, 2024)). In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Samantha McIsaac, Esq.