Hadley Barndollar v. Plymouth County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20253145)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 4, 2025 SPR25/3145 Patrick C. Lee, Esq. General Counsel Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office 24 Long Pond Road Plymouth, MA 02360 Dear Attorney Lee: I have received the petition of Hadley Barndollar, of MassLive, appealing the response of the Plymouth County Sheriff’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 8, 2025, Ms. Barndollar requested, “[a]ny records dated Jan. 1, 2022 to present day about deaths of inmates in custody, including but not limited to incident reports and causes of death.” The Office responded on September 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Ms. Barndollar petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3145, 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

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/3145 Page 2 November 4, 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. The Office’s September 19th Response In its September 19, 2025 response, the Office provided a responsive record, but cited Exemptions (b), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive incident reports in their entirety. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Barndollar argued against the applicability of Exemptions (b), (c), and (f). In support of her appeal, Ms. Barndollar also provided examples of similar requests that were fulfilled by other entities. Exemption (b) Exemption (b) permits the withholding of records that are: related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (b). The general purpose of the cognate federal exemption is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection materials in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have an interest. See Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 362-70 (1976) (interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption for records which are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432 (1983) (Massachusetts Public Records Law modeled on federal Freedom of Information Act). The courts have interpreted the federal exemption to allow withholding of materials that, if released, could cause agency rules or regulations to be circumvented. See Fiumara v. Higgins, 572 F. Supp. 1093, 1102 (1983) (internal codes are exempt where disclosure may enable outsiders to circumvent agency functions). The analysis employed by the federal courts requires a two-pronged test. Material is exempt if it is predominantly used internally and if disclosed would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. See Marrera v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 622 F. Supp. 51, 55 (D.D.C. 1985) (Bureau of Prisons access and identity codes were properly withheld as materials in which the public would have no legitimate interest or which would compromise security if disclosed).

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/3145 Page 3 November 4, 2025 Under Exemption (b), the Office stated: The request seeks information related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, and proper performance of necessary government functions requires withholding of this information. The Secretary of the Commonwealth has recognized the need to limit public access to prison records, citing the need to protect the confidential nature of law enforcement methods: One of the DOC’s primary functions is to maintain secure penal institutions. Information regarding the procedures used by correctional officers during law enforcement activities may relate solely to the internal workings of the DOC. Moreover, disclosures of this information could prove detrimental to the DOC’s law enforcement efforts, as knowledge of the DOC’s security response procedures could enable an inmate to circumvent such procedures. Disclosure would reveal law enforcement methods in responding to and investigating suicide attempts and medical emergencies. Public dissemination of such law enforcement methods would increase the risk that inmates could circumvent the security procedures of the Facility. Based on the Office’s response, I find the Office has not demonstrated how the withheld incident reports relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit. Additionally, the Office has not established how disclosure of the withheld information would hinder the proper performance of necessary governmental functions. It should also be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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). The Office must clarify these matters. 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).

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/3145 Page 4 November 4, 2025 First Clause – Medical 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. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). 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). 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). 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. Under Exemption (c), the Office stated: Such records are exempt from disclosure under G.L c. 4 §7 cl. Twenty-sixth (c)… Responsive records include detailed accounts of the illness or injury which led to the decedents’ deaths, along with the response of medical and correctional professionals. A person’s privacy interest in his medical records survives his death, and public dissemination of private medical information invades the privacy of the surviving family and loved ones.

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/3145 Page 5 November 4, 2025 To the extent that the responsive incident reports contain the medical information of a specifically identified individual, I find that the Office may properly withhold such portions under Exemption (c). However, the Office has not shown that the responsive records, in their entirety, constitute medical information. Also, the Office has not shown that the records, in their entirety, contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor that disclosure thereof would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is unclear whether this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Office must also 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. Id. It is additionally unclear how the records cannot be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (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). The Office must clarify these matters. 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. at 290 n.18. 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

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/3145 Page 6 November 4, 2025 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. Under Exemption (f), the Office stated: The request seeks investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of 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… Disclosure would reveal law enforcement methods in responding to and investigating suicide attempts and medical emergencies at the Facility. Public dissemination of such law enforcement methods would increase the risk that inmates could circumvent the security procedures of the Facility, reducing the ability of security staff to intervene and prevent suicide or save the life of an inmate who has attempted suicide, or to respond to a medical emergency. Based on the Office’s response, it is unclear how the responsive incident reports may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f). Specifically, it is unclear how all of the withheld records constitute confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Office has also not sufficiently demonstrated how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). The Office must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Barndollar 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. Ms. Barndollar may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Hadley Barndollar