Ethan French v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20252998)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 27, 2025 SPR25/2998 Jacob Gunderson Public Records Team Member Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Place Boston, MA 02114 Dear Mr. Gunderson: I have received the petition of Ethan French appealing the response of the Suffolk 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 September 9, 2025, Mr. French requested, “[a]ll clerk magistrate show cause hearing recordings, arrest warrants, any and all documentation related to rendition or extradition for those warrants, any and all communications with other agencies regarding the defendant or specified cases for [an identified case] docket numbers 2404CR000424, 2404CR000423.” The Office provided a response on September 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. French petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2998, 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. 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. 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

Jacob Gunderson SPR25/2998 Page 2 October 27, 2025 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. French states, “[p]lease find attached the appeal for FOIA request #250908 to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office.” The Office’s September 22nd Response In its September 22, 2025 response, the Office cited Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold requested records. In an email dated October 23, 2025, the Office provided the docket sheets on the cases of Commonwealth v. Yurista, Salva Reverentia, 2404CR000424 & 2404CR000423 currently pending in Charlestown District Court. The Office advised, “[t]he dispositions are pending as the activity is suspended.” 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 pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. 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: Ethan French