Azhar Alshamarti v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (SPR 20252693)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 19, 2025 SPR25/2693 Ruthy Barros Records Access Officer/Deputy Clerk Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination One Ashburton Place, Room 601 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Barros: I have received the petition of Azhar Alshamarti appealing the response of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (Commission) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 22, 2025, Mr. Alshamarti requested “...a complete and detailed copy of the investigative file, including but not limited to:” 1. All submissions and responses from the Respondent (landlord/attorney). 2. All of my submissions, responses, and exhibits. 3. All correspondence between MCAD and both parties. 4. Date-stamped filings, notices, and internal memoranda related to case progress. 5. Any official status letters or determinations issued in my case. The Commission responded on August 25, 2025 and September 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s responses, Mr. Alshamarti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2693, 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

Ruthy Barros SPR25/2693 Page 2 September 19, 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. 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Alshamarti asserts, “...on September 9, 2025, MCAD formally denied my request ... I respectfully request your office to review MCAD’s refusal to provide me with a complete and accurate copy of my complaint file.” The Commission’s August 25th and September 9th response In its August 25, 2025 response, the Commission confirmed receipt of Mr. Alshamarti request and stated “[w]e are reviewing and processing your request. If any or all of the requested documents are exempt pursuant to the public records law, you will be notified by this office.” In its September 9, 2025 response, the Commission stated “[The] MCAD case Azhar Alshamarti v. Brick X Brick. LLC, Saji J. Lukose, MCAD Docket No. 25BPR01421 is still under investigation at the Commission. As such. MCAD cannot provide copies of any documents from your investigative file until after the investigative disposition has entered. (See 804 CMRl.21 (1)(a) (2020)). Under MCAD regulations, a party does not have access to their investigative file until an Investigative Disposition has been issued. (804 CMR 1.21(1)(2) (2020). Upon request to the Records Access Officer post-determination, the parties to a complaint shall be allowed access to the investigative file except that all records described in 804 CMR 1.21(3) (2020) shall be unavailable.” Active Administrative Proceeding 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 light of the pending matter, it is my determination that the records at issue in this appeal is the subject of a dispute in an active administrative proceeding. Accordingly, I decline

Ruthy Barros SPR25/2693 Page 3 September 19, 2025 to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted 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: Azhar Alshamarti