Andrea M. Kelly v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20252934)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 14, 2025 SPR25/2934 Mark Relation, Esq. Public Records Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 255 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Andrea M. Kelly, Esq., of O’Malley, Harvey and Brosnan, LLC, appealing the response of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 25, 2025, Attorney Kelly requested the following: …any and all records and materials… relating to Commonwealth v. Jarod Hardaker, Clinton District Court #2468CR000171 [including] any documents relating to police reports, investigative reports, photographs, videotapes including surveillance video, booking video, cruiser video, and body camera video, audiotapes, statements made by the defendant or witnesses, incident reports, interviews, activity reports, interoffice correspondence, evidence inventory listings, laboratory reports, forensic reports, autopsy report, expert reports, CARS reports, medical records, evidence, CAD sheets, 911 calls, Miranda forms booking forms, and all other documents pertaining to the WDAO’s investigation and prosecution of [an identified individual]... I am requesting the full criminal file for Commonwealth v. Jarod Hardaker, including but not limited to the documents listed. The Office responded on July 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Attorney Kelly petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2934, 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 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/2934 Page 2 October 14, 2025 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 Office’s July 9th Response In its July 9, 2025 response, the Office informed Attorney Kelly that it was “… unable to satisfy [her] request …” and “… unable to locate any documents under that docket number.” In support of this assertion, the Office cited G. L. c. 276, § 100C. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Kelly argued that the Office’s response is deficient for the following reasons: [1] The WDAO has failed to meet its burden requiring it to explain the applicability of the exception to the public records request. [2] G. L. c. 276, § 100C applies only the commissioner of probation and the clerk of the court and not the office of the district attorney. [3] These materials sought in the June 25, 2025 public records request are separate and distinct from the criminal record itself, and thus not subject to § 100C. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a).

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/2934 Page 3 October 14, 2025 A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its July 9, 2025 response, the Office relied upon G. L. c. 276, § 100C, which provides in pertinent part: In any criminal case wherein the defendant has been found not guilty by the court or jury, or a no bill has been returned by the grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause has been made by the court, the commissioner of probation shall seal said court appearance and disposition recorded in his files and the clerk and the probation officers of the courts in which the proceedings occurred or were initiated shall likewise seal the records of the proceedings in their files … The commissioner or the clerk of courts in any district or superior court or the Boston municipal court, in response to inquiries by authorized persons other than any law enforcement agency or any court, shall in the case of a sealed record report that no record exists. G. L. c. 276, § 100C. Given that the requested records are sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100C, which limits the dissemination of these records and requires that records custodians “… report that no record exists,” the requested records are exempt from disclosure by necessary implication pursuant to the second category of Exemption (a). Therefore, the Office has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 276, § 100C; Doe v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 485 Mass. 554, 563 n.17 (2020) (holding that records sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100C are statutorily exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Kelly is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/2934 Page 4 October 14, 2025 jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrea M. Kelly, Esq.