Sean Coughlin v. Middlesex County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20250759)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 20, 2025 SPR25/0759 Meagan Horn, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office 15 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801 Dear Attorney Horn: I have received the petition of Sean Coughlin appealing the response of the Middlesex 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 February 28, 2025, Mr. Coughlin sought several categories of records relating to a February 21, 2025 incident which occurred in Ayer, Massachusetts. On March 17, 2025, the Office provided a response. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Coughlin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0759, 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. 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. 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

Meagan Horn, Esq. SPR25/0759 Page 2 March 20, 2025 The Office’s March 17th Response In its March 17, 2025 response, the Office informed Mr. Coughlin that the February 21st incident was the subject of an ongoing criminal case. The Office further stated that it was withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his March 19, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Coughlin argued that the Office had not met its burden to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by-case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” Id. at 289-90. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and confirmed that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Ayer District Court. See Commonwealth v. John Francis Medaglia III (District Court Docket No. 2548CR000210). 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:

Meagan Horn, Esq. SPR25/0759 Page 3 March 20, 2025 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. 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). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sean Coughlin