Laura Gillis v. Sherborn Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252047)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 28, 2025 SPR25/2047 Sergeant James Graziano Records Access Officer Sherborn Police Department 17 Washington Street Sherborn, MA 01770 Dear Sergeant Graziano: I have received the petition of Laura E. Gillis, Esq., of Gillis Law, on behalf of Susan Aharonian, appealing the response of the Sherborn Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 27, 2025, Ms. Aharonian requested a copy of a police report. The Department provided a response on May 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Gillis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2047, 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. See 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. 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

Sergeant James Graziano SPR25/2047 Page 2 July 28, 2025 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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. Status of the Requestor Please note that under the Public Records Law the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Aharonian’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. The Department’s May 1st Response In its May 1, 2025 response, the Department provided Ms. Aharonian with a copy of the requested police report, redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her appeal, Attorney Gillis stated, “[t]he response from the Department…states the intention to ‘withhold/redact’ information, which upon information and belief, rises above and beyond the statutory exemptions for legal redaction.” 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). First clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to

Sergeant James Graziano SPR25/2047 Page 3 July 28, 2025 medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). Second clause – Privacy 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 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. In its May 1, 2025 response, the Department stated its “inten[tion] to withhold/redact the following requested records: [o]perator’s license number[;] [p]ersonal phone numbers[;] [s]ocial security numbers[;] [m]inor’s privacy[, and] … medical files or information.” Based on the Department’s response, I find that it may permissibly withhold driver’s license numbers, social security numbers, and personal telephone numbers from disclosure under Exemption (c). Additionally, to the extent that the requested record contains the medical information of a specifically named individual, I find that the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how information relating to a “minor’s privacy” constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether the redacted information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Department did not provide information with respect to examining whether the

Sergeant James Graziano SPR25/2047 Page 4 July 28, 2025 public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Gillis with a response to the request 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Attorney Gillis may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Susan Aharonian Laura E. Gillis, Esq.