Rachel Kadis v. Executive Office of Aging & Independence (SPR 20252702)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 24, 2025 SPR25/2702 Lesley Moreau Records Access Officer Executive Office of Aging & Independence 1 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Moreau: I have received the petition of Rachel Kadis appealing the response of the Executive Office of Aging & Independence (Office/AGE) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 31, 2025, Ms. Kadis requested, “[a]ny and all records, logs, documentation, reports, case notes, complaints, and correspondence in the custody of Old Colony Elder Services that pertain to [two identified individuals].” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2423 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 28, 2025). In my August 28th determination, I ordered the Office to clarify its claims under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and to identify the records it possesses that it intends to withhold. The Office responded on September 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Ms. Kadis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2702, 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. 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

Lesley Moreau SPR25/2702 Page 2 September 24, 2025 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request 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). Accordingly, Ms. Kadis’ interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. It is unclear if Ms. Kadis 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 affording Ms. Kadis a greater right of access to the responsive records. The Office’s September 12th Response In its September 12, 2025 response, the Office cited the Fair Information Practices Act (FIPA) as it operates through Exemption (a), as well as Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the responsive records. In addition, the Office stated: AGE again references the Unique Right of Access documents outlined to your original response which state that upon receipt of a copy of personally identifying information for the requester such as a driver’s license and a copy of the Letters of the Administration for the Estate for the other individual in the request, AGE will produce the records outside of the public records process. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Kadis argued: [1] Exemption (a) does not apply to records concerning the requestor[;] [2] Exemption (c) – privacy balancing weighs in favor of disclosure[;] [3] FIPA does not bar disclosure to the data subject[;] [4] Estate documentation requirement is improper[.]

Lesley Moreau SPR25/2702 Page 3 September 24, 2025 In a subsequent email to this office on September 12, 2025, Ms. Kadis argued that the Office failed to provide a response within 10 business days and stated, “[t]he untimeliness alone provides sufficient grounds for an order to produce the requested records.” Following a telephone conversation between the Office and an attorney for the Public Records Division on September 16, 2025, this office reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that criminal litigation relating to records that are the subject of this request is active and ongoing in Brockton District Court. See Commonwealth vs. Kadis, Rachel M., Brockton District Court, Docket No. 2515CR002737. 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 light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to 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: Rachel Kadis