Celeste Hedequist v. Wellesley, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20242748)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 17, 2024 SPR24/2748 Cynthia D. Mahr Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations Wellesley Public Schools 40 Kingsbury Street Wellesley, MA 02481 Dear Ms. Mahr: I have received the petition of Celeste Hedequist appealing the response of the Wellesley Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 29, 2024, Ms. Hedequist requested emails from four identified individuals to a specified recipient between November 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018. Previous Petition and Appeal This request was the subject of a previous petition from the Town of Wellesley (Town) and an appeal from Ms. Hedequist. See SPR24/2566 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 16, 2024) and SPR24/2577 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 25, 2024). In my September 16th determination, I found that the Town had met its burden to assess a fee for segregation and redaction of the responsive records, and in my September 25th determination, I ordered the Town to provide further explanation concerning its fee estimate. Subsequently, the School responded on September 30, 2024, providing redacted records and citing Exemption (c) in support of its redactions. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Hedequist petitioned this office on October 3, 2024, and the current appeal was opened as a result. Upon review of the file, it is my understanding that on September 16, 2024, Ms. Hedequist narrowed the scope of her request to, “[e]mails between . . . [an identified individual] and/or [a second identified individual] and [a third identified individual] between November 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018[.]” It also appears that following the School’s September 30th response, in an email to the School on the same date, Ms. Hedequist further modified her September 16th request and stated, “. . . please produce the email files in .eml or .msg format.” Additionally, while the current appeal was pending, I learned that the School provided a 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

Cynthia D. Mahr SPR24/2748 Page 2 October 17, 2024 supplemental response by email to Ms. Hedequist and this office on October 4, 2024. In an email to this office and the School on the same date, Ms. Hedequist objected to the School’s supplemental response. The School subsequently provided an additional supplemental response to Ms. Hedequist and this office in an email on the same date. 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. 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. Current Appeal In her current appeal, Ms. Hedequist asserts the following: [1] The information regarding the NTOs . . . have been public information or in the public domain since they [sic] issued. This is not a basis to withhold other emails or documents which are responsive. [2] The documents should be produced in .eml or .msg format and the emails should be individually produced with a header. It’s impossible to decipher from the production how these emails were received and/or sent as produced. The School’s September 30th Response In its September 30, 2024 response, the School identified two responsive records and provided them in redacted form pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to:

Cynthia D. Mahr SPR24/2748 Page 3 October 17, 2024 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). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires 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 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 September 30th response, under Exemption (c), the School stated the following: [T]he records contain information related to a No Trespass Order (NTO). The fact that the Department may have issued a no trespass order against a particular individual and/or his or her family is an intimate detail of a highly personal nature. If released, this information could significantly affect the family’s reputation, including the child. The minor child in particular has an elevated privacy interest in such information. The public interest in disclosing that the [School] has issued a NTO against a particular individual and his or her family does not outweigh the privacy interest of the individual and her or her family. To our knowledge, the fact that an NTO was issued against this particular individual is not public information.

Cynthia D. Mahr SPR24/2748 Page 4 October 17, 2024 Similarly, the records contain information related to a Harassment Prevent [sic] Order (HPO). The records identify both parties to the HPO. The fact that an individual allegedly received unwanted and harassing messages is an intimate detail of a highly personal nature. It is a sensitive matter to be the recipient of such unwanted communications and if released, could subject to additional harassment from the alleged aggressor or harassment from other individuals. There is no public interest in learning the identity of individuals that have been the subject of such harassment. Because the public interest does not outweigh the privacy right [o]f the individual, this information is redacted. Likewise, the fact that one has been accused of harassing another individual to the extent that an HPO has been issued is an intimate detail of a highly personal nature. If released, this information could significantly affect an individual’s reputation. The public interest in disclosing that an individual has been accused of sending such messages is not outweighed by the privacy interest of the individual. To the knowledge of the [School], information related to the HPO is not widely available from other sources. Accordingly, the [School] has narrowly redacted the names of individuals subject to the NTO and HPO. The [School] has also redacted information related to the individual who obtained the HPO. In light of the above, where the School has only redacted the names of the individuals subject to the No Trespass Order and the Harassment Prevention Order, as well as identifying information of the individual who obtained the Harassment Prevention Order, I find that the School has met its burden to redact such information under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The School’s October 4th Supplemental Responses In the first of two supplemental responses dated October 4, 2024, the School responded to Ms. Hedequist’s September 30th modification of her request in which she indicated she sought the responsive emails in .eml or .msg format. In doing so, the School advised that it was unable to provide the responsive emails in either .eml or .msg format because “[t]he IT Department does not have access to tools that will allow a user to redact parts of messages in their native format (.eml or .msg).” The School further explained, “[c]onverting to PDF and redacting with Adobe tools is the only current technical solution the [School] has.” Following the School’s first October 4, 2024 supplemental response, in an email to this office and the School on the same day, Ms. Hedequist objected to the School’s claim that it was unable to provide the responsive emails in.eml or .msg format. She stated, “there should be absolutely no reason why you cannot produce the emails in their native form and then manually redact them.”

Cynthia D. Mahr SPR24/2748 Page 5 October 17, 2024 Following Ms. Hedequist’s objections to the School’s initial October 4th supplemental response, the School provided an additional supplemental response on the same day and stated, “[w]e have provided . . . the records in a searchable format. We have fulfilled the request.” Preferred Format A records access officer must, to the extent feasible, provide public records to a requestor in electronic format unless the record is not available in electronic form or the requestor does not have the ability to receive or access the records in electronic format and if feasible, in the requestor’s preferred format. In the absence of a preferred format, the records must be provided in a searchable machine-readable form. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5)(d). Please be advised, this office has reviewed the records provided to Ms. Hedequist, and they appear to be a searchable, machine-readable format. Accordingly, where the School has provided the responsive records in a searchable, machine-readable format and has explained in its initial October 4, 2024 supplemental response that it is not feasible to provide the responsive records in Ms. Hedequist’s preferred format, I find the School has met its burden under G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Hedequist is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Celeste Hedequist