Kyle Goodwin v. Yarmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253140)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 7, 2025 SPR25/3140 Nicholas R. Giammarco Records and Evidence Division Yarmouth Police Department One Brad Erickson Way West Yarmouth, MA 02673 Dear Mr. Giammarco: I have received the petition of Kyle Goodwin appealing the response of the Yarmouth 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 October 15, 2025, Mr. Goodwin requested “[a]ll documents related to the pre-employment background investigation regarding [an identified] police candidate ... Documents requested include, but are not limited to:” [1] Employment application[;] [2] Candidate Information Packet[;] [3] Copies of any investigative interviews with references provided by the candidate or otherwise developed[;] [4] Any reports created by the background investigator or otherwise[; and] [5] Any letters, emails, reports, text messages, or voicemails, which document the reason(s) why my participation and involvement in the hiring process was discontinued. The Department responded to Mr. Goodwin’s request on October 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Goodwin petitioned this office, and this appeal SPR25/3140, 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

Nicholas R. Giammarco SPR25/3140 Page 6 November 7, 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. 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. Status of the Requestor 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). Therefore, Mr. Goodwin’s interest in obtaining the reports shall have no bearing on the public nature of the records. The Department’s October 27th response In its October 27, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Department denies access pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law (G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c)). Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Goodwin stated, “I respectfully submit this appeal under G.L. c. 66, §10 and 950 CMR 32.00 challenging the Yarmouth, MA Police Department’s denial of my request for records related to the background investigation conducted during my candidacy for a police officer position.” 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

Nicholas R. Giammarco SPR25/3140 Page 6 November 7, 2025 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Personnel Information While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass App Ct 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Association, 431 Mass. at 798. 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. 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).

Nicholas R. Giammarco SPR25/3140 Page 6 November 7, 2025 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 27, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Department determined the information obtained through the background investigation contains information that constitutes ‘intimate details.’ Additionally, the Department determined that public disclosure does not outweigh the privacy interest associated with disclosing the information. In this context, disclosing the requested records may be embarrassing to both the candidate and the witnesses, as they contain details that the parties may wish to keep private.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department contacted the Public Records Division by email on October 29, 2025. The Department stated “[i]n order to protect the identity of witnesses who provided statements to the department and prevent potential reprisal, the information was withheld in its entirety.” Although certain information may fall under Exemption (c), it is not clear how the records can be withheld in their entirety. The Department must clarify whether segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non- exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Further, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what types of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the Department withheld responsive records without identifying each of the records. Therefore, the Department must identify what type of record(s) it has in its possession that the Department withheld under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Goodwin with a response 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. Mr. Goodwin may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Nicholas R. Giammarco SPR25/3140 Page 6 November 7, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kyle Goodwin