Rachel Kadis v. Executive Office of Aging & Independence (SPR 20252423)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 28, 2025 SPR25/2423 Lesley Moreau Records Access Officer Executive Office of Aging & Independence 1 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Moreau: I have received the petition of Rachel Kadis appealing the response of the Executive Office of Aging & Independence (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 31, 2025, Ms. Kadis requested, “[a]ny and all records, logs, documentation, reports, case notes, complaints, and correspondence in the custody of Old Colony Elder Services that pertain to [two identified individuals].” The Office responded on August 15, 2025, assigning the request reference number 2025.8.1. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Ms. Kadis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2423, 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

Lesley Moreau SPR25/2423 Page 2 August 28, 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. 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. Kadis’ interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. It is unclear if Ms. Kadis may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Ms. Kadis a greater right of access to the responsive records. The Office’s August 15th Response In its August 15, 2025 response, the Office cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. In addition, the Office stated: …[U]pon receipt of Power of Attorney (if living) or Letters of the Administration for the Estate (if deceased) for the individual mentioned in the request, and a copy of personal identification for yourself such as a driver’s license, AGE will produce certain responsive records under a separate cover letter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66A – Fair Information Practice Act. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Kadis argued against the applicability of Exemption (c) and stated, “[t]he requested records pertain directly to myself and an elderly homeless man with no known surviving family, whom I personally provided housing and care for prior to his passing.” 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).

Lesley Moreau SPR25/2423 Page 3 August 28, 2025 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. Under Exemption (c), the Office stated: …[R]ecords related to identified individuals are exempt from disclosure under the public records law pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)… Such records contain information of a highly personal nature, including specific details which identify individuals. Release of such information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the individuals’ privacy interests. The individuals’ privacy interests outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. Further, where you requested records pertaining to an identified individual, AGE would be unable to deidentify the requested records with redactions, to the extent responsive records exist. Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear how the Office may withhold responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In this case, the Office has not established how the withheld records, in their entirety, contain intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Office must also provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Consequently, the Office has not met its burden to withhold responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.

Lesley Moreau SPR25/2423 Page 4 August 28, 2025 Additionally, the Office did not identify the responsive records it possesses that it intends to withhold. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Therefore, the Office must identify the records it has in its possession that it intends to withhold under Exemption (c). It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Office must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Kadis with a response to the request, provided 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. Ms. Kadis may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rachel Kadis