Jonah Badanes Katzman v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252464)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 3, 2025 SPR25/2464 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Jonah Badanes-Katzman appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 9, 2025, Mr. Badanes-Katzman requested, “…the non-exempt portions of records relating to CPD Case #24010122 (reported Nov 5-6, 2024).” Specifically, Mr. Badanes-Katzman sought: [1] Incident/Offense report(s), cover sheets, narratives, and supplemental reports for Case #24010122. [2] Call-for-service/CAD logs and any dispatch audio or notes for the same incident window. [3] Any officer notes, memos, photos, or attachments associated with the case. [4] Communications (emails or messages) between CPD personnel and the City Solicitor’s Office specifically referencing Case #24010122 from Nov 5, 2024 to Dec 10, 2024 (to the extent they are in CPD custody). The City responded on August 18, 2025, assigning the request reference number P251656-081125. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Badanes-Katzman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2464, 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 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

Seah Levy SPR25/2464 Page 2 September 3, 2025 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. 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, Mr. Badanes-Katzman’s interest in obtaining the record shall have no bearing on the public nature of the records. The City’s August 18th Response In its response, the City cited G. L. c. 119, § 51F as it operates through Exemption (a), as well as Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law to deny the request. In addition, the City stated, “[t]hese records are the subject of ongoing litigation in the matter of Jonah Badanes- Katzman v. City of Cambridge…” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Badanes-Katzman argued that the City’s response is deficient for the following reasons: [1] Policy‑deliberation (Exemption (d)) is narrowly construed and does not justify withholding factual police records… [2] Statutory Exemption (a) via G.L. c. 119, §51F does not categorically shield CPD’s own incident materials… [3] Duty to segregate and release non‑exempt portions… In a further email to this office on August 25, 2025, Mr. Badanes-Katzman stated, “[t]he City’s Aug 18 denial… withholds all records… despite my Aug 9 request being limited to segregable factual front-matter and expressly requesting segregation. I respectfully request a

Seah Levy SPR25/2464 Page 3 September 3, 2025 determination directing rolling production of the incident cover/face sheet and CAD (with juvenile identifiers redacted) and requiring a document-by-document explanation for any withheld pages.” Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the docket of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation. See Badanes-Katzman v. City of Cambridge, Massachusetts District Court Docket No. 1:25-cv-12243 (August 11, 2025). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a), (c), and (d) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonah Badanes-Katzman