Richard Stagnone v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (SPR 20251793)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 7, 2025 SPR25/1793 Ruthy Barros Records Access Officer Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination One Ashburton Place, Room 601 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Barros: I have received the petition of Richard Stagnone appealing the response of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (Commission/MCAD) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 11, 2025, Mr. Stagnone requested “all written notes of [a named individual] and all communications (regardless of form) between [the individual] and any employee of MCAD in regards to MCAD policies and practices or anything related to the MCAD Complaint which [a named individual] filed on the morning of June 11, 2025 in Boston.” The Commission responded on June 23, 2025, and assigned reference number 25-279 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Stagnone petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1793, 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 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

Ruthy Barros SPR25/1793 Page 2 July 7, 2025 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. Stagnone argues the following: The records requested are not part of the MCAD Case Investigation, these are messages generated by MCAD staff, between MCAD staff during the complaint intake process. These records investigation of the MCAD Complaint which I filed earlier this month hasn’t even been approved to go forward yet. I am told, it could take up to 3 months for a determination. These records are at risk of being deleted if not preserved and provided to me. The Commission’s June 23rd Response In its June 23, 2025 response, the Commission states that it is withholding responsive records pursuant to 804 C.M.R. 1.21(1)(a) as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, and pursuant to Exemption (f). See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (f). The Commission further explains the following: As the complainant in the matter of Richard Stagnone v. Sadip Biswas, Eshwara Kopparthy, Carla Harlan, Robyn Sunderland, Linda Childs, Kendra Thomas, and State Street Bank and Trust Company, MCAD Docket No. 25NEM01520, [Mr. Stagnone] requested all written notes of Maria Sanchez and all communications, regardless of form, between Maria Sanchez and any MCAD employee regarding MCAD policies and practices or any matter related to the complaint [he] filed on the morning of June 11, 2025, in Boston. The case referenced in [his] request is still under investigation. Pursuant to 804 CMR 1.21(1)(a) (2020), “the investigative file in every charge under investigation, including the complaint, shall be confidential and exempt from public disclosure” until an investigative disposition has been issued. With the exception of the complaint and investigative disposition, the contents of MCAD investigative files are not available to the public, although parties are permitted greater access to their own investigative files. See G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f) and 804 CMR 1.21 (2020).

Ruthy Barros SPR25/1793 Page 3 July 7, 2025 Pending Administrative Proceeding 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 this case, the Commission has confirmed that an administrative proceeding relating to the records at issue in Mr. Stagnone’s request is currently pending before the Commission. See Richard Stagnone v. Sadip Biswas, Eshwara Kopparthy, Carla Harlan, Robyn Sunderland, Linda Childs, Kendra Thomas, and State Street Bank and Trust Company, (MCAD Docket No. 25- NEM-01520). In light of the pending administrative matter, 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 the administrative action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Stagnone