Alexander M. Dean v. Division of Occupational Licensure (SPR 20251878)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 10, 2025 SPR25/1878 Malav Patel, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Division of Occupational Licensure 1000 Washington Street, Suite 710 Boston, MA 02118 Dear Attorney Patel: I have received the petition of Alexander M. Dean, Esq., of Barr, Sternberg, Moss, Silver & Munson, P.C., appealing the response of the Division of Occupational Licensure (Division) 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, Attorney Dean sought the following: [P]roof of LLC insurance provided to or otherwise on file with this Board, pursuant to 254 CMR 2.00(12)(h), that purports to provide liability or “errors and omissions” insurance coverage to Real Estate Business. . . .(known as DREAM REALTY, LLC) and/or its [identified] Partner. . . .The initial licensure of this Business with the Board occurred on March 15, 2016. If there are multiple proofs of insurance, changes to insurance, etc. responsive to this request, I am only requesting the most recent responsive document. This request is dated back to October 5, 2015 because that is the date that the LLC was first registered with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. . . . The Division provided a response on June 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Division’s response, Attorney Dean petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1878, 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 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

Malav Patel, Esq. SPR25/1878 Page 2 July 10, 2025 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. 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 Division’s June 27th Response In its June 27, 2025 response, the Division provided records and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information. Current Appeal In his petition, Attorney Dean objects to the Division’s “redaction of the Policy or Bond Numbers” in three responsive records provided in the Division’s June 27th response, and notes that the three records containing these redactions are as follows: “1. the Insurance for Real Estate and Property Managers Professionals issued by Hiscox Insurance Company Inc. . . . ; 2. the Real Estate Broker Bond by Great American Insurance Company . . . ; and 3. the Certificate of Liability Insurance issued by ACORD. . . .” Specifically, Attorney Dean contends that “the Policy and Bond numbers requested are not [‘]personnel [or] medical files or information [or] any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.[’]” He further states that he is, “not appealing any other redactions nor claiming any other violation by the DOL with respect to this PRL request.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).

Malav Patel, Esq. SPR25/1878 Page 3 July 10, 2025 Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires a balancing test, which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Under Exemption (c), the Division stated the following: [T]he documents that you requested include materials exempted by G.L. c. 4, § 7(26) from the definition of a “public record.” The Privacy Exemption, under sub- clause (c) of clause 26 of G.L. c. 4, § 7, exempts the disclosure of personnel and medical information, as well as data, that if disclosed, would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Accordingly, such information, if present, including but not limited to, telephone numbers, insurance policy numbers, bond numbers, bank information, and any other highly personal data, has been redacted from the materials provided. Based on the Division’s response, it is unclear how insurance policy numbers and bond numbers constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also not clear whether this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Division did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The Division must clarify these matters.

Malav Patel, Esq. SPR25/1878 Page 4 July 10, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Division is ordered to provide Attorney Dean with a response to his 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 this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alexander M. Dean, Esq.