Steven Coughlin v. Office of the Attorney General (SPR 20252018)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 24, 2025 SPR25/2018 Hanne Rush, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Rush: I have received the petition of Steven P. Coughlin appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 29, 2025, Mr. Coughlin requested, “[c]opies of the filings on AG160002B, civil citation A15-10-37620-001-records for a wage violation filing sometime between 11/10/2015 and 1/30/2016. A lien filed on 1/11/2016 in [an identified] name...” On May 14, 2025, Mr. Coughlin modified his request and requested, “[o]nly the names of the people that filed a claim with the AG’s office back in 2015.” The AGO provided Mr. Coughlin with a response on May 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Coughlin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2018, 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 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

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR25/2018 Page 2 July 24, 2025 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. Current appeal In his July 9, 2025 appeal, Mr. Coughlin stated, “[t]he exemptions cited by the AGO in its June 2, 2025, denial (G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c) and 26(f) are not applicable to Respondent’s request and do not exempt disclosure of any responsive documents. The records sought are documents constituting or relating to Claimant’s complaint to the Attorney General regarding a Wage Act violation...” The AGO’s May 19th response In its May 19, 2025 response, the AGO provided Mr. Coughlin, “four (4) pages of redacted records that may be responsive to your initial April 29, 2025 request...” The AGO cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law in support of the redactions. With regard to Mr. Coughlin’s April 14th modified request, the AGO withheld responsive records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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). Analysis under the second clause of 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 clause 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

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR25/2018 Page 3 July 24, 2025 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 the second clause of 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 clause 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. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983).

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR25/2018 Page 4 July 24, 2025 The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. In its response, the AGO asserts, ... records have been redacted in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c), insofar as they contain information relating to specifically named individuals, i.e., the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. See also G.L. c. 66A, § 2(c); 940 CMR 11.04(1). Further, G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) (Exemption (f) also applies to withhold the names and identifying information of such complainants filing complaints concerning employment matters, as such disclosure would cause a “chilling effect” on complainants to speak candidly with law enforcement. With regard to the May 14th request, the AGO further asserts, Further, this secondary request is subject to the Massachusetts Fair Information Practices Act (FIPA), G.L. c. 66A, and associated AGO regulations, 940 CMR 11.00 et seq., as it concerns information related to redacted complainant ... that is not a public record. Under FIPA, the AGO may not disseminate personal data to persons other than [Named Individual] (the “data subject”) without their written authorization or unless another exception applies. Exemption (f) permits the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. Consequently, I find the AGO may permissibly redact the names and identifying information of complainants from the responsive records under Exemption (f). With respect to the May 14th modified request, seeking the names of complainants, I find the AGO may permissibly withhold such information from disclosure under Exemption (f), to protect the identities of the complainants. The inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his/her career, such as people in the workforce community. See Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438; see also Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248 (redactions may be appropriate under Exemption (f) where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses). Conclusion Accordingly, where I find the AGO may permissibly redact and withhold the responsive records under Exemption (f), I decline to opine on the AGO’s Exemption (c) claim supporting

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR25/2018 Page 5 July 24, 2025 non-disclosure of the records. I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Steven P. Coughlin