Mark Adams v. Board of Registration in Medicine (SPR 20252592)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2025 SPR25/2592 Tara Douglas, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Board of Registration in Medicine 200 Harvard Mill Square, Suite 330 Wakefield, MA 01880 Dear Attorney Douglas: I have received the petition of Mark Adams appealing the response of the Board of Registration in Medicine (Board/BORIM) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 31, 2025, Mr. Adams requested: [1] All emails and communications of any kind between the Board of Registry of Medicine (BORIM) and any of their agents or representatives and the Massachusetts Forensic Science Board in regards to their dealings with [identified individuals]. . .[;] [2] All emails and communications of any kind between [identified individuals] and anyone of any nature in regards to the Adams matter. This should include communications with the Board of Forensic Science and any of their board members[;] [3] Copies of all reports that were solicited by the BORIM regarding the Adams complaint, including any done by [an identified individual] in a professional capacity or as a board member. Any communications, notes, etc. in regards to this report as well[;] [4] All emails, communications of any sort by anyone on the Massachusetts Forensic Science Board in regards to anything to do with the Adams matter[;] [5] All emails, communications of any sort by anyone at the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security in any nature concerning, about either Adams, or anything about either the investigation at BORIM or the Forensic Science Board. 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

Tara Douglas, Esq. SPR25/2592 Page 2 September 11, 2025 On June 1, 2025, Mr. Adams supplemented his May 31st request seeking “[c]opies of all emails, notes, communications, reports, etc. between the BORIM, to include [identified individuals], either to or from.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/1817 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 8, 2025) and SPR25/2185 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 6, 2025). In my August 6th determination, I found that the Board had not met its burden to redact and withhold records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, and ordered the board to clarify whether it possessed additional records responsive to Item 3 of the request. The Board responded on August 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Board’s response, Mr. Adams petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2592, 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). 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 Board’s August 27th Response In its August 27, 2025 response, the Board provided additional information in support of its withholding and redaction of records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. With regard to Item 3 of the request, the Board stated that it was withholding the requested record under G. L. c. 112, § 5 and 243 CMR 1.08(2)(c)(2), pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Board further stated that the requested record had previously been the subject of a determination and subsequent reconsideration issued by this office in SPR24/1808. The determination provides in pertinent part:

Tara Douglas, Esq. SPR25/2592 Page 3 September 11, 2025 Where the above statute and regulations contemplate the confidentiality of “. . . any complaint, report, record or other information received or kept by the board in connection with an investigation[,]” and records maintained in the Board’s Data Repository, I find the Board has met its burden to withhold the records under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. SPR24/1808 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 2, 2024). Current Appeal In his August 30, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Adams contended that the cited statutes did not restrict disclosure of the requested record. Mr. Adams did not object to the Board’s redaction and withholding of records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Where Mr. Adams’ concerns were addressed in my July 2, 2024 determination and subsequent reconsideration, I find that no further violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Adams in the appeal petition. Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that no further violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Adams in the appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If Mr. Adams is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mark Adams