Franklin Castano v. Essex County Sheriff's Department (SPR 20250536)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 6, 2025 SPR25/0536 Gretchen Grosky Director of Communications Essex County Sheriff’s Department 20 Manning Avenue, P. O. Box 807 Middleton, MA 01949 Dear Ms. Grosky: I have received the petition of Franklin Castano 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 January 14, 2025, Mr. Castano requested, “a complete copy of my visitor entry log book … that would reflect attorneys [three named individuals] visiting me while I was incarcerated there since April of 2014 through September of 2015.” The Department provided a response on January 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Castano petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0536, 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. Att’y 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 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

Gretchen Grosky SPR25/0536 Page 2 March 6, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s January 23rd response In its January 23, 2025 response, the Department states: As your request indicates, you previously requested your visitor logs from the Department, specifically, on April 22, 2024. As you may recall, on June 21, 2024, the Department provided you with your visitor logs. Subsequently, you appealed the Department’s response to the Supervisor of Records, alleging that the Department failed to include visits by several of your attorneys in the visitation logbook. The Department confirmed that all responsive records in its possession were provided to you and no further documentation exists. The Supervisor of Records held in its Appeal Determination that the Department is not required to create a record in response to a public records request and that 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…. The requested records are over ten years old and the Department’s software systems have undergone various updates and changes since then. As aforementioned, all records that the Department still has in its possession were previously provided to you. Current Appeal In his appeal to this office, Mr. Castano states, “I know that the requested information in my PRR are in the possession of the ECSD and the excuse that [has] been used … is real suspicious. I doubt that those alleged updates will delete only the attorney’s records and not the rest. Plus, each state agency have a ‘backup data,’ which is a copy of electronically stored information that serves as a source for recovery in the event of a system problem or disaster.” In a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the Department on March 5, 2025, the Department confirmed that it provided all records responsive to the request and that there are no additional responsive records. Conclusion Where the Department confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Castano’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Castano 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).

Gretchen Grosky SPR25/0536 Page 3 March 6, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Franklin Castano