Q. Doe v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20250112)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2025 SPR25/0112 Mark Relation, Esq. Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 225 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Q. Doe appealing the response of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 13, 2025, Q. Doe requested the following: [R]ecords related to the Office of the Worcester County District Attorney and [three named] individuals ... Specifically, I am requesting copies of the following documents for the above individuals: - Surety bonds - Insurance policies - Oaths of office - Salary information for the fiscal years 2023-2024 - Names and titles, including identification cards (names and titles) - Commissions or appointments - Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) disclosures (if applicable) - Any records indicating membership in or affiliations with private organizations, corporations, or businesses that could pose potential conflicts of interest[.] The Office responded on January 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Q. Doe petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0112, 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 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/0112 Page 2 January 27, 2025 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 the appeal petition, Q. Doe contends that “[d]espite my repeated attempts to resolve these issues, including submitting public records requests and corresponding with the District Attorney’s Office, I have received no corrective action.” The Office’s January 10th Response In its January 10, 2025 response, the Office argues the following: Requests for personnel and potential impeachment records relating to prosecutors handling [Q. Doe’s] open and ongoing criminal cases constitutes a discovery request. The public records law cannot be used to circumvent the rules of discovery because “discovery should follow normal procedures in criminal cases where its availability lies in the discretion of the trial judge under standards developed” by the Supreme Judicial Court. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). See G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). 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 the criminal litigation,

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/0112 Page 3 January 27, 2025 relating to the records at issue in Q. Doe’s request, is still active and ongoing in the Worcester District Court. See Commonwealth v. Quantreil Korey Laura, (Worcester District Court Docket Nos. 2162-CR-002285, 2162-CR-003124, 2262-CR-000826, and 2362-CR-003185). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of these actions could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Q. Doe