Rebecca Mozdiez v. Middlesex County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20252530)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 9, 2025 SPR25/2530 Meagan Horn, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Middlesex District Attorney’s Office 15 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801 Dear Attorney Horn: I have received the petition of Rebecca Mozdiez appealing the response of the Middlesex 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 August 11, 2025, Ms. Mozdiez requested the following records from “March 15, 2025 – August 10, 2025”: [1] All emails and written correspondence (including attachments) — sent or received between and among personnel of the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office, including but not limited to . . . [five identified individuals]. . . [2] All emails and written correspondence (including attachments) — sent to or received from the following offices/agencies by any Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office personnel, including all ADAs, clerks, staff, and victim/witness advocates: Westborough Police Department (all staff, including [two identified individuals] . . .)[,] Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (all staff)[,] Marlborough District Court (all clerks and staff)[,] Westborough District Court (all clerks and staff)[,] Owen O’Leary’s Restaurant . . . [3] Keywords for search: [38 identified keywords] [4] Regardless of keywords: Any emails or written correspondence between the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office and: Westborough Police Department (all staff)[,] Westborough District Court (all clerks and staff)[.] The Office provided a response on August 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Mozdiez petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2530, was opened as a result. 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

Meagan Horn, Esq. SPR25/2530 Page 2 September 9, 2025 Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request In her appeal, Ms. Mozdiez provides a specific argument for why she has “statutory standing to access records that would otherwise be withheld from the general public.” 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). Therefore, Ms. Mozdiez’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the records. However, it is unclear if Ms. Mozdiez 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 of affording Ms. Mozdiez a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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. 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 August 25th Response In its August 25, 2025 response, the Office denied the request in its entirety and cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law in support of its position.

Meagan Horn, Esq. SPR25/2530 Page 3 September 9, 2025 Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by-case consideration” of whether disclosure ‘would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-290. Under Exemption (f), the Office stated the following: Because your request implicates an open criminal case, disclosure of records is presumptively prejudicial to effective law enforcement such that no records will be provided. See G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (exemption f) (“investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest”). Exemption (f) permits “the prevention of the disclosure of confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information.” WBZ-TV4 v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 408 Mass. 595, 603 (1990), quoting Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). See Continental Assurance Co. v. Diorio-Volungis, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 403, 411-412 (2001) (records related to open investigation exempt from disclosure under exemption (f)). Current appeal In her August 26, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Mozdiez contends, “[t]he DA’s office did not make the required showing of prejudice as required under exemption (f).” She further requests that this office review “this matter . . . with a determination issued regarding whether the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office properly applied Exemption (f) and whether non-exempt portions of the requested records should be released.”

Meagan Horn, Esq. SPR25/2530 Page 4 September 9, 2025 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. In a telephone conversation between a representative of the Office and a Public Records Division staff member on September 5, 2025, the Office advised that a criminal proceeding related to the records at issue in Ms. Mozdiez’s request is currently pending before Marlboro District Court. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the criminal litigation, relating to records that are the subject of Ms. Mozdiez’s request, remains active and ongoing in Marlboro District Court. See Commonwealth v. Gill, Kevin F. (District Court Docket No. 2521CR000279). Conclusion In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold 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: Rebecca Mozdiez