Julia Ducey v. Southbridge, Town of - Office of the Town Manager (SPR 20252485)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 5, 2025 SPR25/2485 Gayle Raducha Administrative Assistant Town Manager’s Office Town of Southbridge 41 Elm Street Southbridge, MA 01550 Dear Ms. Raducha: I have received the petition of Julia Ducey appealing the response of the Town of Southbridge (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 11, 2025, Ms. Ducey requested “[a]ll applications for retail liquor licenses with all supporting documents and copies of cashed checks for the license payments for the year of 2025.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2197 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 1, 2025). In my August 1st determination, I found that the Town had not met its burden to redact responsive records and that it was unclear whether additional responsive records existed. The Town responded on August 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Ducey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2485, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided further responses on August 21 and August 25, 2025. 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). 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

Gayle Raducha SPR25/2485 Page 2 September 5, 2025 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. 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 August 6th Response In its August 6, 2025 response, the Town informed Ms. Ducey that it had redacted cell phone numbers, home addresses, and banking information from the responsive records under “Exemption 6.” Current Appeal In her August 21, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Ducey objected to the Town’s redactions as overbroad, and stated that she had been provided with “cancelled checks” rather than “cashed checks.” In its August 21, 2025 response, the Town clarified that it had redacted financial information, personal information, and insurance information relating under “Exemption #6” and “Exemption # 8.” In its August 25, 2025 response, the Town further clarified that its redactions were made pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Town confirmed that it had provided all responsive checks in its possession in redacted form. 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).

Gayle Raducha SPR25/2485 Page 3 September 5, 2025 Second Clause - Privacy 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. In its August 25th response, the Town informed Ms. Ducey that it was redacting the following information, on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy: [1] Financial information including banking info – routing, account, cashing (listed on checks, applications)[;] [2] Personal information – cell phone numbers and home addresses (listed on checks and applications)[;] [3] Insurance information (listed on applications)[;] [4] Social Security numbers (listed on applications)[.] Based on the Town’s responses, I find that it may permissibly withhold financial information, personal telephone numbers, and social security numbers from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, I find that the Town has not met its burden to justify the remainder of its redactions. Based on the Town’s responses, it is not clear how insurance information, an individual’s signature, a business’s name and location, a retail license number, or a business telephone number constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature. It is also not clear how

Gayle Raducha SPR25/2485 Page 4 September 5, 2025 disclosure of such information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, nor if such information is available from other sources. Further, the Town did not provide information with respect to examining whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Ducey 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. Ms. Ducey may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Julia Ducey