Jason Ortiz v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20250871)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 10, 2025 SPR25/0871 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Second Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Jason Ortiz, Esq., of Pellegrini, Seeley, Ryan & Blakesley, P.C., appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 27, 2025, Attorney Ortiz requested “a copy of the . . . police report” related to an incident “on 05/17/2023 that occurred at the Citgo gas station located at 273 Hancock Street in Springfield, MA.” The City responded on March 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response and claiming to not yet have received responsive records, Attorney Ortiz petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0871, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a further response to this office on April 9, 2025. 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/0871 Page 2 April 10, 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. Current Appeal In his March 31, 2025 appeal petition, Attorney Ortiz explains that his office represents an individual in a claim related to the incident described in his request. He further indicates, “. . . at some point, the police spoke to hospital workers regarding how they found my client and the events of the [incident]. The response to the request states that no report exists, yet an officer took the time to memorialize what occurred and communicate the events to the hospital.” He further provides a medical record related to the incident “that reflects the same” regarding the officer’s creation of a police report. Purpose of Request; Identity of Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Ortiz’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The City’s March 27th and April 9th Responses In its March 27, 2025 response, the City states, “[t]he records you asked for do not exist.” In its further response to this office on April 9, 2025, a representative for the City advises, “[t]he City . . . has received Appeal SPR25/0871. We have contacted the Springfield Police Department about double checking its records for the requested records.” Possession, Custody or Control; Records in Existence The City is advised 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, 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). Based on the information provided in Attorney Ortiz’s appeal petition, in conjunction with the City’s responses, it is unclear what records the City possesses that are responsive to this request. If the City does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/0871 Page 3 April 10, 2025 “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). The City must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Ortiz with a response to his 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. Attorney Ortiz may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jason Ortiz, Esq.