Stephen Stoute v. Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth - Administrative Services Division (SPR 20252407)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 28, 2025 SPR25/2407 Sofya Gray Records Access Officer Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth Administrative Services Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1719 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Gray: I have received the petition of Stephen Stoute appealing the response of the Administrative Services Division (Division) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 25, 2025, Mr. Stoute requested the following: 1.) Oath of Office of Associate Judge Peter J. Rubin 2.) Oath of Office of Associate Judge Sookyoung Shin[.] The Division responded on August 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Division’s response, Mr. Stoute petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2407, 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

Sofya Gray SPR25/2407 Page 2 August 28, 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 appeal petition, Mr. Stoute requests the following: I want to appeal the letter sent from [the Division’s] office . . . Please confirm that Associate Judge Rubin doesn’t have an oath of office. Please confirm that the Massachusetts courts doesn’t have a copy of Judge Rubin’s oath of office. Based upon a review of his appeal petition, it appears that Mr. Stoute does not object to the redactions under Exemption (o), but only contends that the Division may possess additional responsive records. The Division’s August 5th Response In its August 5, 2025 response, the Division provided a record responsive to Item 2 of the request in redacted form, and cited Exemption (o) of the Public Records Law for redacting the record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o). Additionally, the Division stated that it does not possess records responsive to Item 1 of the request. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). In a conversation with a senior attorney of the Public Records Division on August 27, 2025, a representative of the Division confirmed that the Division does not possess records responsive to Item 1 of the request. Where the Division has confirmed that it does not possess additional responsive records, and the Division has no duty to create records, I find that the Division has met its burden in

Sofya Gray SPR25/2407 Page 3 August 28, 2025 responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Outside the Scope of the Supervisor’s Authority Mr. Stoute is advised that the Office of the Supervisor of Records is statutorily empowered with the authority to determine the public record status of government records. G. L. c. 66, § 10. “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form, made or received by any officer or employee of any department of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). In examining this definition, and the separation of powers doctrine, the Supreme Judicial Court has concluded that the Public Records Law does not apply to records of the judiciary. Ann K. Lambert v. Executive Director of the Judicial Nominating Council, 425 Mass. 406, 409 (1997); see also Mass. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 30 (separation of powers). Where the records of the judiciary are not subject to the Public Records Law, I am unable to assist Mr. Stoute in the aspect of his appeal regarding records in the possession of the Massachusetts courts. See Kettenbach v. Bd. of Bar Overseers, 448 Mass. at 1020. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Stoute is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stephen Stoute