Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq. v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20252436)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 2, 2025 SPR25/2436 Mark Relation, Esq. Public Records Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 225 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq., of Thomas Law Offices, PLLC, appealing the response of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 7, 2025, Attorney Haynes requested records “… relating to the death of [an identified individual] and the investigation and prosecution of [an identified individual][.]” The Office responded on July 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Haynes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2436, 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. Att’y 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/2436 Page 2 September 2, 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 Office’s July 9th Response In its July 9, 2025 response, the Office informed Attorney Hanes that it was “… unable to satisfy [his] request …” and “… unable to locate any documents under that docket number.” In support of this assertion, the Office cited G. L. c. 276, § 100C. Current Appeal In his August 18, 2025 petition to this office, Attorney Haynes objected to the withholding of responsive records under the cited statute. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its July 9, 2025 response, the Office relied upon G. L. c. 276, § 100C, which provides in pertinent part:

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/2436 Page 3 September 2, 2025 In any criminal case wherein the defendant has been found not guilty by the court or jury, or a no bill has been returned by the grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause has been made by the court, the commissioner of probation shall seal said court appearance and disposition recorded in his files and the clerk and the probation officers of the courts in which the proceedings occurred or were initiated shall likewise seal the records of the proceedings in their files … The commissioner or the clerk of courts in any district or superior court or the Boston municipal court, in response to inquiries by authorized persons other than any law enforcement agency or any court, shall in the case of a sealed record report that no record exists. G. L. c. 276, § 100C. Given that the requested records are sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100C, which limits the dissemination of these records and requires that records custodians “… report that no record exists,” the requested records are exempt from disclosure by necessary implication pursuant to the second category of Exemption (a). Therefore, the Office has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 276, § 100C; Doe v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 485 Mass. 554, 563 n.17 (2020) (holding that records sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100C are statutorily exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Haynes 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 of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq.