← Back to Search
Elise Lambert v. Department of Correction (SPR 20251165)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 04-28-2025
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20251165 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Elise Lambert concerning records held by Department of Correction, opened 04-28-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20251165
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Elise Lambert
- Custodian
- Department of Correction
- Date Opened
- 04-28-2025
- Date Closed
- 05-07-2025
- Date Request Submitted
- 02-13-2025
- Response Provided Date
- 02-27-2025
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 7, 2025 SPR25/1165 Kate Silvia Director of Communications Department of Correction 50 Maples Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Silvia: I have received the petition of Elise M. Lambert, of Committee for Public Counsel Services, appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 13, 2025, Ms. Lambert requested “[a]ll the evidence logs and scan results from TruNark machines at all DOC facilities from August 1, 2024 through present.” The Department provided responses on February 27, 2025 and April 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Lambert petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1165, 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. See 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 SPR25/1161 Page 2 May 7, 2025 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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 February 27th and April 7th Responses In its February 27th response, the Department stated, “[we] are in receipt of your records request dated February 13, 2025…Please be advised that the Department is currently reviewing your request to see what records the Department is in possession of are public records.” In its April 7th response, the Department stated, “[it] will follow up and advise.” Current Appeal In Ms. Lambert’s April 28, 2025 petition to this office, she stated, “[w]e filed our initial public records request on [February 13, 2025] and as of today have not received any responsive records from MADOC.” 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 Ms. Lambert submitted her request on March 26, 2025, and the Department has not provided the responsive 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). Consequently, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete its review and provide the responsive 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. Allison Mondello SPR25/1161 Page 3 May 7, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Lambert 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. Ms. Lambert 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: Elise M. Lambert