Timothy Duguay v. Department of State Police (SPR 20250779)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2025 SPR25/0779 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Timothy Duguay appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 3, 2024, Mr. Duguay requested “[c]opies of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory policies, procedures, and/or protocols relative to presumptive (or screening) test(s) for the presence of blood, confirmatory testing of suspected blood, and serology testing of blood that were in place back in 1995.” The Department responded on September 9, 2024, October 1, 2024, November 15, 2024, January 24, 2025, and March 7, 2025, assigning the request reference number P010127-090924. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Duguay petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0779, 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. 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/0779 Page 2 April 2, 2025 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 9th, October 1st, November 15th, January 24th and March 7th Responses On September 9, 2024, the Department stated, “[t]he Massachusetts State Police received your public records request… [i]f the Department determines, given the nature and volume of records being requested, that a fee assessment is necessary, the estimated cost for the production of the requested records, and a request for prepayment, will be calculated and forwarded to you.” Then, in each of the Department’s responses on October 1, 2024, November 15, 2024, January 24, 2025, and March 7, 2025, in response to update inquiries from Mr. Duguay, the Department stated, “[p]lease be advised the Public Records Unit processes requests in the order they are received. Due to the high volume of requests we receive daily, we have not yet had a chance to process your request.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Duguay states, “…it has now been over six months since my initial records request, and I still do not have the requested records…” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Duguay’s request was submitted on September 3, 2024, and the Department has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it

Allison Mondello SPR25/0779 Page 3 April 2, 2025 expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Duguay with a response to the request provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Mr. Duguay may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Timothy Duguay