Michael Fanale v. Natick, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252968)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 16, 2025 SPR25/2968 Danielle M. Corda Administrative Assistant Natick Police Department 20 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Ms. Corda: I have received the petition of Michael Fanale appealing the response of the Natick 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 August 15, 2025, Mr. Fanale requested records related to three incidents which occurred on June 10, June 15, and June 27, 2025. On September 28, 2025, Mr. Fanale amended his request to include 11 categories of records related to a January 2024 incident, surveillance and dash camera video recordings, a 209A harassment prevention order, and communications related to several identified individuals. The Department responded on August 22, August 29, and September 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Fanale petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2968, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response on October 14, 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 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

Danielle M. Corda SPR25/2968 Page 2 October 16, 2025 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, Mr. Fanale’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s Responses In its August 22, 2025, the Department acknowledged receipt of the request, and stated that it intended to provide a substantive response no later than August 29, 2025. In its August 29, 2025 response, the Department produced a responsive record redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department withheld additional responsive records pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. In its September 30, 2025 response, the Department acknowledged receipt of Mr. Fanale’s September 28th modification. Current Appeal In his October 8, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Fanale contended that the Department had not produced all responsive records in its possession. In its October 14, 2025 response, the Department produced certain responsive records, and redacted and withheld additional responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c), and (n) of the Public Records Law. In an email communication to this office on October 15, 2025, Mr. Fanale objected to the Department’s citation of Exemptions (a), (c), and (n), and contended that the Department possessed additional responsive records which it had not provided to him. Mr. Fanale further stated that the responsive records were relevant to “pending civil rights litigation and criminal proceedings.”

Danielle M. Corda SPR25/2968 Page 3 October 16, 2025 This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and confirmed that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in the Middlesex County Probate and Family Court. See Michael Fanale v. Merissa Fanale (Docket No. MI23D3271DR). 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. 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). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a), (c), and (n) to the responsive records. 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: Michael Fanale