Namu Sampath v. Department of Public Health (SPR 20252563)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2025 SPR25/2563 Helen Rush-Lloyd Records Access Officer Department of Public Health 250 Washington Street, Second Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Rush-Lloyd: I have received the petition of Namu Sampath, of The Springfield Republican/MassLive, appealing the response of the Department of Public Health (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 22, 2025, Ms. Sampath requested the following records: [1] All complaints/incident reports filed against staff at Gandara Mental Health Center in Springfield between Jan. 1, 2025 and present day. [2] All complaints/incident reports filed against staff at all Center for Human Development facilities in Western Massachusetts during the same time frame. On July 29, 2025, Ms. Sampath modified her request as follows, “... complaints filed by patients against staff, not all notifications to your department. Understanding this request would produce a very large set of information, I am amenable to narrowing my request if that would be helpful.” The Department responded on July 29, 2025, August 5, 2025, August 19, 2025, and August 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Sampath petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2563, 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). 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

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR25/2563 Page 2 September 11, 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. Current appeal In her February 25, 2025 appeal, Ms. Sampath states, “...as it has now been over a month since I made the request, and I have not heard back about or received copies of my records, I am seeking the Supervisor of Records to please advise.” The Department’s July 29th, August 5th, August 19th, and August 25th Responses In its July 29, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[w]e have received your request and are gathering responsive materials but are requesting clarification. The original ... references complaints and incident reports against staff, can you please confirm whether you want to see only complaints that have been filed or all notifications reported to the department, which may or may not involve staff? This is going to be a very large set of information as is, it will require an extension and a rolling production.” In a second email on July 29, 2025, the Department also stated, “[w]e will put together those materials for you and be in touch.” In its August 5, 20215 response, the Department stated, “[w]e are working on getting you an update as to a timeline as soon as possible. I will check in with the program and get you a response tomorrow.” In its August 19, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[w]e have the first installment being reviewed for redactions while my colleagues are working on another installment. There was confusion, as we discussed as to the date range.” In its August 25, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[the Department has] inquired about the status of your request and am currently awaiting a response from the program. I will get back to you as soon as I can with the response.” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR25/2563 Page 3 September 11, 2025 municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Sampath’s request was submitted on July 22, 2025, and the Department has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Sampath 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. Sampath may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Namu Sampath