Susan M. Bourque, Esq. v. Natick, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252076)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 30, 2025 SPR25/2076 Danielle M. Corda Administrative Assistant Natick Police Department 20 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Ms. Corda: I have received the petition of Susan M. Bourque, Esq., of Parker Scheer LLP, on behalf of Emma G. Farhart, appealing the response of the Natick 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 July 9, 2025, Ms. Farhart requested a copy of the complete file pertaining to a May 1, 2025 dog bite incident. The Department responded on July 9 and July 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Attorney Bourque petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2076, 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 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. 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

Danielle M. Corda SPR25/2076 Page 2 July 30, 2025 Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Farhart’s purpose in making the request 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 July 9th and July 10th Responses In its July 9, 2025 response, the Department provided Ms. Farhart with a responsive incident report redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In its July 10, 2025 response, the Department reiterated its position and provided additional justification for its redactions. Current Appeal In her July 17, 2025 petition to this office, Attorney Bourque contended that Exemption (c) did not apply to the requested records, because the records were not sought pursuant to the Public Records Law. 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 is 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. Id. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987).

Danielle M. Corda SPR25/2076 Page 3 July 30, 2025 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 July 10, 2025 response, the Department stated: This report was redacted per Massachusetts Public Record law under Exemption “C” Privacy. As it is labeled a “No Crime” Report all personal information such as names of the involved individuals have been removed as well as any medical information. Per Exemption C Private individual information including names, physical injuries and or/medical information is exempt from public disclosure as it would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. To the extent the responsive records contain the medical information of a specifically identified individual, such portions may be withheld under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Additionally, I find that the Department has met its burden to withhold personal telephone numbers and social security numbers under Exemption (c). However, the Department has not met its burden to demonstrate that the remainder of its redactions constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor that disclosure would result

Danielle M. Corda SPR25/2076 Page 4 July 30, 2025 in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Department did not provide information with respect to examining whether the 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 Bourque with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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 Bourque may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Susan M. Bourque, Esq. Nicole Hadaya