Framingham Unfiltered v. Framingham, City of - Public Schools Department (SPR 20251630)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 23, 2025 SPR25/1630 Amy Kane Records Access Officer Framingham Public School District 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Kane: I have received the petition of Brian Petrini-Smith, on behalf of Framingham Unfiltered, appealing the response of the Framingham Public School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 4, 2025, Mr. Petrini-Smith requested: [T]he following limited set of records related to the legal matter Phylicia Daniels v. Framingham Public Schools, et al, as cited in recent legal invoices from [an identified law firm]: [1] The final version of the litigation assessment or legal strategy memorandum (referred to as the “ATLP”) prepared by [an identified law firm] and shared with school officials[;] [2] The litigation budget prepared in connection with this matter[;] [3] Any correspondence sent to or received from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) regarding the scheduling or outcome of the investigative conference related to this case. The District provided a response on June 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Petrini-Smith petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1630, was opened as a result. 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

Amy Kane SPR25/1630 Page 2 June 23, 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. Att’y 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. The District’s June 9th Response In its June 9, 2025 response, the District stated: Upon reviewing the materials responsive to your request, we have determined that certain documents or portions thereof are exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). This exemption protects from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters” that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. This includes materials protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and the deliberative process privilege. The withheld documents contain confidential communications between attorneys and their clients made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice, and are therefore protected under the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, we must deny access to those portions of the requested records. Similarly, we have also determined that certain documents or portions thereof are exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) and G.L. c. 4 § 7(26)(f), as some of the documents sought involve investigatory materials requested by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and relating to an ongoing investigation being conducted by MCAD.

Amy Kane SPR25/1630 Page 3 June 23, 2025 Current Appeal In his June 9, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Petrini-Smith stated the following: [1] Federal FOIA exemptions do not apply to Massachusetts agencies. [2] Denial lacks the specific required by 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3). [3] Over-breadth of attorney-client / work-product claim. [4] Misuse of Exemption (f). [5] Failure to provide a segregability analysis or privilege log. [6] Procedural non-compliance. Active Administrative Proceeding 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: The Supervisor of Records 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 an email communication between the District and this office on June 16, 2025, the District confirmed that administrative proceedings relating to the records at issue in Mr. Petrini- Smith’s request is currently pending before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). See Phylicia Daniels v. Framingham Public Schools & Adeyemi Ajao (MCAD Docket No. 23BEM03516); see also (EEOC No. 16c-2024-00600). In light of the pending administrative proceedings, I decline to opine on these matters at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law and attorney-client privilege to the requested records. 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: Brian Petrini-Smith