Rachel Kadis v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252583)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2025 SPR25/2583 Meredith Roselli Office Administrator Public Records Access Officer Bridgewater Police Department 220 Pleasant Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. Roselli: I have received the petition of Rachel Kadis appealing the response of the Bridgewater Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 24, 2025, Ms. Kadis requested, “the following records related to [an identified individual]”: [1] Any and all reports, narratives, incident logs, or supplemental documentation referencing or submitted by [an identified individual] from May 1 to May 31, 2025[;] [2] All lobby and public interview room surveillance video and audio from the following dates and times: [a] May 7, 2025 – between 6:40 p.m. and 7:10 p.m.[;] [b] May 16, 2025 – between 4:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.[;] [c] May 18, 2025 – between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2384 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 27, 2025). In my August 27th determination, I found that the Department did not meet its burden to withhold the responsive records, in their entirety, under the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act, operating through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Subsequently, the Department responded on August 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Kadis petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2583, 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

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2583 Page 2 September 11, 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). 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 Department’s August 29th Response In its previous July 25, 2025 response, the Department cited the CORI Act, operating through Exemption (a) to withhold the responsive records. Specifically, the Department advised that it, “intends to withhold the . . . requested records due to the applicability of the following exemptions. . . . [CORI]: In particular, G.L. c. 6, sections 167-178B, and related regulations. . . . The records requested contain information related to a criminal investigation and subsequent charges. As a result, such information must be withheld under the law.” In its August 29, 2025 response, the Department advised, “[i]n response to the Supervisor of public records [determination] regarding SPR25/2384. . . . All the records being requested by Rachel Kadis specifically relate to an ongoing investigation, charges, and current active litigation. . . .” The Department additionally cited Commonwealth vs. Kadis, Rachel M., Brockton District Court, Docket No. 2515CR002737, and stated, “[t]hese records, in their entirety, are directly related to an active court case in which Rachel Kadis is the defendant[.]” Current Appeal In her August 29, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Kadis asserts, “[a]s the named defendant, I have a heightened interest in transparency and accountability regarding the records at issue.” 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

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2583 Page 3 September 11, 2025 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. Kadis’ status shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. Ms. Kadis may wish to consider another means of seeking to obtain any existing responsive records. Active 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 trial court’s docket and verified that criminal litigation, relating to records that are the subject of this request, remains active and ongoing in the Brockton District Court. See Commonwealth vs. Kadis, Rachel M., Brockton District Court, Docket No. 2515CR002737. Conclusion In light of the active litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). 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: Rachel Kadis