Elise Lambert v. Essex County Sheriff's Department (SPR 20243051)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 22, 2024 SPR24/3051 Jordan Elizabeth Mitchell, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Essex County Sheriff’s Department 20 Manning Avenue Middleton, MA 01949 Dear Attorney Mitchell: I have received the petition of Attorney Elise M. Lambert appealing the response of the Essex County Sheriff’s Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 29, 2024, Attorney Lambert requested “[a]ll records and correspondence (including emails, contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, letters, etc.) regarding the transfer of female residents from the Suffolk County House of Correction at South Bay (South Bay) to the Barnstable County House of Correction (BHOC).” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/1924 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 17, 2024). In my July 17th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Attorney Lambert with a written response to the request. Subsequently, the Department responded on September 26, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Lambert petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/3051, 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 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

Jordan Elizabeth Mitchell, Esq. SPR24/3051 Page 2 November 22, 2024 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 Department’s September 26th Response In its September 26, 2024 response, the Department provides a responsive record and indicates that it intends to withhold other records pursuant to Exemptions (a), (d), and (n) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (d), (n). Records in Existence; Possession Custody and Control The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Additionally, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In an email to this office on November 14, 2024, an attorney for the Department explains that they “spoke to the requestor ... to seek clarification and get a better understanding of what records they are specifically seeking.” In a further email to this office on November 19, 2024, the Department stated that “at this point in time it is the Department’s understanding that it has provided all responsive documents to the requestor and does not have any further documentation to produce.” Additionally, in a telephone call with this office on November 21, 2024, the Department confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to the request. Conclusion Where the Department confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Attorney Lambert’s request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Elise M. Lambert, Esq.