Mona Igram v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253126)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 7, 2025 SPR25/3126 Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor, Records Access Officer (RAO) City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 303 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Kalkounis: I have received the petition of Attorney Mona Igram, of the Center for Public Representation, appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 16, 2025, Attorney Igram requested, for Worcester Police Incident Numbers 2024000008968 and 2023000122662, “all written reports, including...:” [1] Arrest Reports[;] [2] Incident Reports[;] [3] Use of Force Reports[; and] [4] CAD sheets[.] The City responded on September 16, 2025 and October 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Attorney Igram petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3126, 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. 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

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3126 Page 2 November 7, 2025 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 City’s September 16th and October 1st Responses In its September 16, 2025 response, the City stated, “[y]our request has been received by City of Worcester and is being processed in accordance with the Massachusetts Public Records Law.” In its October 1, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of redacting and/or withholding certain information contained in the records responsive to Attorney Igram’s request. Current Appeal In her appeal, Attorney Igram states, “[t]he City has not met its burden showing that M.G.L. c.4 §7, cl. 26(c) applies to the records requested, and has provided no specific reasons as to why the exemption would apply to any of the requested reports, much less all of them. Instead of redacting medical or private information from the reports, the City chose to withhold all reports.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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). First Clause – Medical Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306,308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987).

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3126 Page 3 November 7, 2025 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. 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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 response, the City stated, “[t]he City of Worcester has reviewed your request and has determined that the records requested are exempt from disclosure under FOIA for the following reasons: Massachusetts General Laws c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (c).... The records you have requested contain personal medical information, the disclosure of which would result in an invasion of personal privacy of an identified individual ... A governmental entity is required to examine the privacy interest at issue in light of the context of the disclosure. With respect to the requested records, the City has determined that the privacy interests associated with the disclosure of portions of the requested record outweighs the public interest in the disclosure. Accordingly, the City has redacted this information from the requested records.” Based on the City’s claims, to the extent that the records contain medical information, the City may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure. However, the City has not demonstrated that the balance of the records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the City did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Accordingly, I find the City has not met its burden of demonstrating how the reports can be withheld and/or redacted under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3126 Page 4 November 7, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Igram with a response to her request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Attorney Igram may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mona Igram, Esq.