Julia Ducey v. Southbridge, Town of - Office of the Town Manager (SPR 20253092)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 31, 2025 SPR25/3092 Gayle Raducha Administrative Assistant Town Manager’s Office Town of Southbridge 41 Elm Street Southbridge, MA 01550 Dear Ms. Raducha: I have received the petition of Julia Ducey appealing the response of the Town of Southbridge (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 11, 2025, Ms. Ducey requested “[a]ll applications for retail liquor licenses with all supporting documents and copies of cashed checks for the license payments for the year of 2025.” Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/2197 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 1, 2025) and SPR25/2485 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 5, 2025). In my September 5th determination, I found that the Town could permissibly withhold financial information, personal telephone numbers, and social security numbers from disclosure under Exemption (c), but it did not meet its burden to justify the remainder of its redactions under Exemption (c). The Town responded on September 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Ducey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3092, 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 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

Gayle Raducha SPR25/3092 Page 2 October 31, 2025 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 Town’s September 10th Response In its September 10, 2025 response, the Town informed Ms. Ducey that it had “redacted cell phone numbers, personal email addresses, home addresses, social security numbers, insurance policies (insurance policies are private contracts between an individual and an insurer, and they include sensitive personal and financial information, and therefore are not public records. Massachusetts law has specific exemptions that protect private information from public disclosure. Insurance policies fall under these exemptions to protect privacy) and financial information.” Current Appeal In her October 22, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Ducey objected to the Town’s redactions as overbroad, stating the following: I requested checks that have been cashed by the town for annual liquor license renewals and though [the Town] has unredacted the dates, [it] continues to black out the back of the checks where the date and confirmation these checks have been properly cashed is located… …Important public documents within the sphere of both public interest and safety (such as proof of liquor license insurance and workers comp insurance) are redacted without cause. These are documents that are required by the town and presented before a public board at a public meeting for review… I am looking to appeal this response of the town again… In an October 23, 2025 communication to this office, the Town clarified that its redactions were made pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Additionally, in an October 27, 2025 communication to this office, the Town asserted

Gayle Raducha SPR25/3092 Page 3 October 31, 2025 Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the records. 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). 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, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (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. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause - Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Gayle Raducha SPR25/3092 Page 4 October 31, 2025 This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its October 23rd communication, the Town informed this office that it was redacting the following information, on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy: [1] Confidential/Personal Cell phone numbers[;] [2] Confidential/Personal Email addresses[;] [3] Confidential Home addresses[;] [4] Social security numbers[;] [5] Insurance policies[;] [6] Financial information[.] Additionally, the Town stated, “[t]he back of the checks contains the Town Banking information…and there is a reason we cannot provide this information to the public, as there is a danger of this confidential financial information getting out and being used for personal gain…Checking for Proof of Liquor License Insurance and Workers Comp insurance is the responsibility of the town (not the public) and is strictly adhered to…Insurance information is considered private…This License renewal information is never shared with the public, as it contains personal data, including Social Security numbers, private home addresses and confidential phone numbers…” Based on the Town’s responses, I find that it may permissibly withhold personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, social security numbers, insurance policies, and financial information from disclosure under Exemption (c).

Gayle Raducha SPR25/3092 Page 5 October 31, 2025 However, the Town has not demonstrated that home addresses are intimate details of a highly personal nature or that the disclosure of such information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Town did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Ducey with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Julia Ducey