Leiha Maldonado v. Department of Agricultural Resources (SPR 20253006)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 27, 2025 SPR25/3006 Raquel Loayza Paralegal Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources 225 Turnpike Road, 3rd Floor Southborough, MA 01772 Dear Ms. Loayza: I have received the petition of Leiha Maldonado appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (Department/MDAR) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 7, 2025, Ms. Maldonado requested the following: [1] Any emails, records, or written documents related to [three identified individuals] or … Wedgewood Terrace, Holyoke, MA 01040 or any combination thereof for the following people and organizations: [A list of nine identified individuals and organizations] [2] Any emails, records, or written documents for anyone not listed in [1] and related to [three identified individuals], or … Wedgewood Terrace, Holyoke MA 01040 or any combination thereof [3] Any emails, records, or written documents that mention or explain the following infections related to [three identified individuals] or … Wedgewood Terrace, Holyoke, MA 01040 or any combination thereof (A) Campylobacter Jejuni C JEJUNI (B) Clostridium Perfringens or Clostridiales (C) Feline Coronavirus FCoV or FeCov (D) Feline Infections Peritonitis FIP (E) Tritrichomonas Foetus T FOETUS (F) Cryptosporidium [4] Any emails, records, or written documents about the status of the investigation of my cat, Poppy, and [three identified individuals], or … Wedgewood Terrace, 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

Raquel Loayza SPR25/3006 Page 2 October 27, 2025 Holyoke, MA, 01040 or any combination thereof[.] Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/1119 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 1, 2025), SPR25/1315 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 23, 2025), and SPR25/1873 Determination of Supervisor of Records (July 10, 2025). In my July 10th determination, I found it unclear how the records could be withheld in their entirety under exemption (f) and ordered the Department to identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. The Department provided a response on October 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Maldonado petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3006, 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. Att’y 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 Department’s October 10th Response In its October 10, 2025 response, the Department states it is withholding responsive records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Current Appeal In her October 14, 2025 appeal to this office, Ms. Maldonado stated, “[the Department’s] response on October [10], 2025 restates the June 18, 2025 response without offering further information to support withholding the requested records in their entirety under exemption f.”

Raquel Loayza SPR25/3006 Page 3 October 27, 2025 Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that Exemption (f) aims at “the avoidance of premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial, the prevention of the disclosure of confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information, the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observations, hypotheses and interim conclusions.” Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62; cited with approval in Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or

Raquel Loayza SPR25/3006 Page 4 October 27, 2025  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its October 10th response, the Department states, “[t]he email correspondence records, more specifically, include veterinary records, internal discussions between MDAR staff, discussions between MDAR staff and veterinary staff, and discussions between MDAR staff and [an identified organization], all of which if released prior to the close of the investigation would compromise the investigation. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (f) claim made by the Department to withhold responsive records in their entirety, the Department must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the record to the Department’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian or records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure.

Raquel Loayza SPR25/3006 Page 5 October 27, 2025 Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Leiha Maldonado