← Back to Search
Thomas Rocharz v. Middleborough, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252282)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 08-06-2025
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20252282 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Thomas Rocharz concerning records held by Middleborough, Town of - Police Department, opened 08-06-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20252282
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Thomas Rocharz
- Date Opened
- 08-06-2025
- Date Closed
- 08-11-2025
- Date Request Submitted
- 06-30-2025
- Response Provided Date
- 07-16-2025
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 11, 2025 SPR25/2282 Owen Thompson Chief of Police Middleborough Fire Department 350 Wood Street Middleborough, MA 02346 Dear Chief Thompson: I have received the petition of Thomas Rocharz appealing the response of the Town of Middleborough (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 30, 2025, Mr. Rocharz requested “…the audio recording of the telephone call made to Middleborough Fire Department on June 10, 2025 at 14:46 from phone number ... by [an identified individual] caller.” The Town responded on July 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Rocharz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2282, 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. 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 Chief Thompson SPR25/2282 Page 2 August 11, 2025 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 Town’s July 16th response In its July 16th, 2025 response, the Town uploaded a .WAV audio file that is approximately 30 seconds in length. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Rocharz stated, “[t]he call itself was 3:00 minutes long based on my phone records. I spoke with the dispatcher on duty and then the Captain on duty. On review, the audio recording cuts off after the dispatch conversation. The portion of the conversation that is requested is the conversation with the Captain on duty. I request that the MFD furnish this recording.” Based on Mr. Rocharz’s claims, in conjunction with the Town’s response, it is unclear if the Town possesses a record of the entire phone call. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Town must clarify whether any responsive record of the full phone call exists. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Rocharz 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. Mr. Rocharz 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: Thomas Rocharz