Daniel DeFraia v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20250324)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 13, 2025 SPR25/0324 Grace Jung Records Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Plaza, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Daniel DeFraia, PhD appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 10, 2024, Dr. DeFraia requested, “[a] single Excel document on physical student restraint incidents in Boston Public Schools that contains, among other data, narrative reports of the restraint incident. The date range for this Excel document is the school year of 2021 to the day of this request, 1/10/2024.” The City assigned reference number R000184- 011324 to this request. Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR24/1052 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 12, 2024) and SPR24/1781 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 24, 2024). In my June 24th determination, I ordered the City to clarify whether it possessed any additional records responsive to the request. Subsequently, the City provided a response on January 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Dr. DeFraia petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0324, 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). 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

Grace Jung SPR25/0324 Page 2 February 13, 2025 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. See 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. See 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 City’s January 30th Response In its January 30, 2025 response, the City provided a link to records responsive to the request and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redactions. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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.

Grace Jung SPR25/0324 Page 3 February 13, 2025 In its January 30th response, the City states, “[t]he record is redacted to omit identifying information, parent contact details in accordance with exemption (c) of Massachusetts Public Records law. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the public interest of the individual. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c).” In his appeal petition, Dr. DeFraia states, “. . . while your email mentions redactions, I don’t see any in the excel sheet. Typically, agencies will note the exemption on the document and in the correspondence. It’s pretty clear this excel sheet was edited and sanitized. What information is redacted isn’t noted.” In this case, although the City states that it redacted “identifying information and parent contact details[,]” I find it is unclear what specific information has been redacted pursuant to Exemption (c). Further, it is uncertain how the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Also, the City did not provide information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The City must clarify these matters. The City is reminded that to deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the City must identify the portions of the record it redacted or withheld from disclosure. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control In his appeal petition, Mr. DeFraia states: As I mentioned in my previous emails, these records are incomplete, missing dozens of anonymized columns, including the location of school where the restraint happened. I know this because I have received these records from BPS before, and because BPS is required by statute to collect and record that additional information - like the location of a school where a restraint [occurred] … In light of the above, it is unclear if the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the City must explain whether additional columns exist, including the “location of school.” 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). 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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether additional records exist.

Grace Jung SPR25/0324 Page 4 February 13, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Dr. DeFraia with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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: Daniel DeFraia, PhD