David Jeswald v. Bridgewater State University (SPR 20251025)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 28, 2025 SPR25/1025 Laura Machado Staff Associate and Public Information Officer Office of the President Bridgewater State University 131 Summer Street, Room 200 Bridgewater, MA 02325 Dear Ms. Machado: I have received the petition of David Jeswald appealing the response of Bridgewater State University (University/BSU) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 12, 2025, Mr. Jeswald requested the following: [C]opies of public records that pertain to the Bridgewater State University’s Employees’ communications involving [a named individual] whereas either his name or its appearance is plausible to assume that the student has been alluded to in any way. The University responded on February 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Mr. Jeswald petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1025, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the University provided a further response to this office on April 24, 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. 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

Laura Machado SPR25/1025 Page 2 April 28, 2025 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Jeswald argues the following: I am appealing on the grounds that the information I have requested is not only not identical to the information sought from July 16, 2024 and the most recent request is February 12, 2025 but also that I never received the requested information from my July 16, 2024 request. I was provided the information requested July 5, 2023 and if any of that information which I have already received may not be included because it’s already in my possession and the purpose of my request is for information not currently in my possession. The University’s February 21st and April 24th Responses In its February 21, 2025 response, the University states that it previously provided all responsive records to Mr. Jeswald in response to a previous request and explains the following: Bridgewater State University is not in the possession or custody of employees’ emails and text communications made on their personally owned devices. All responsive communications that exist and are in the possession of Bridgewater State University were provided to you in response to the July 5, 2023 request, which is identical to your request dated July 16, 2024; as well as your most recent request of February 12, 2025. Bridgewater State University considers this request resolved. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be 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). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In accordance with the Public Records Law, 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).

Laura Machado SPR25/1025 Page 3 April 28, 2025 In its April 24, 2025 email to this office, the University explains the following: Mr. Jeswald continues to request the same information which is an identical (copy and paste) from July 5, 2023, July 16, 2024 and again February 12, 2025. BSU does not possess any new records pertaining to this request and as we have explained with each request, we gave him everything except for emails exempted under attorney/client privilege. We did provided a table outlining which of the emails were withheld under the attorney/client exemption. Where the University confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Jeswald’s request, I find that the University has met its burden in responding to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Jeswald 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Jeswald