Joe Schneiderman v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20251262)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 8, 2025 SPR25/1262 Daniel Addady, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Place Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Addady: I have received the petition of Joseph Schneiderman, Esq. appealing the response of the Suffolk 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 March 7, 2025, Attorney Schneiderman requested “[a]ny and all records in Commonwealth v. Paul Callahan, Suffolk Indictment No. 1784CR828 involving plea offers …” The Office responded on March 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Attorney Schneiderman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1262, 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

Daniel Addady, Esq. SPR25/1262 Page 2 May 8, 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 Office’s March 14th Response In its March 14, 2025 response, the Office withheld responsive records and informed Attorney Schneiderman that the subject litigation remained open and ongoing in Suffolk County Superior Court. Current Appeal In his May 6, 2025 petition to this office, Attorney Schneiderman contended that the Office had failed to cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and that the Public Records Law contained no exemption based on a requestor’s special right of access. This office has reviewed the dockets of the trial court and appeals court and confirmed that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Suffolk Superior Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court. See Commonwealth v. Paul M. Callahan (Superior Court Docket No. 1784CR00828) and Commonwealth v. Paul M. Callahan (Appeals Court Docket No. 2019-P-1233). 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: 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). 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: Joseph Schneiderman, Esq.