Charlie McKenna v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20252017)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 24, 2025 SPR25/2017 Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Records Access Officer Norfolk District Attorney’s Office 45 Shawmut Road Canton, MA 02021 Dear Attorney Hunt: I have received the petition of Charlie McKenna, of MassLive, appealing the response of the Norfolk 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 June 25, 2025, Mr. McKenna requested “[a]ny and all communications between the district attorney’s office the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Massachusetts from Jan. 21, 2025 to June 25, 2025[.]” Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the Office. See SPR25/2000 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 17, 2025). In my July 17th determination, I found that the Office may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of responsive records. Concurrent with its petition to this office, the Office provided a fee estimate to Mr. McKenna on July 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, and objecting to the fees, Mr. McKenna petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2017, 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 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

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR25/2017 Page 2 July 24, 2025 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. 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: The public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Although the criminal litigation referenced in the Office’s July 10th response has been resolved, this office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that civil litigation, relating to the records at issue in Mr. McKenna’s request, is active and ongoing in the Plymouth Superior Court. See Paul O’Keefe Individually and Personal Rep. of the Estate of John Joseph O’Keefe III, et al. vs. C&C Hospitality, LLC d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s et al., (Plymouth Superior Court, Docket No. 2483-CV-00692). In light of the pending 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 this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Charlie McKenna