Margaret Sheehan v. Plymouth, Town of - Town Manager (SPR 20253198)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 14, 2025 SPR25/3198 Connor Anderson Records Access Officer Town of Plymouth 26 Court Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Dear Mr. Anderson: I have received the petition of Attorney Margaret Sheehan appealing the response of the Town of Plymouth (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 9, 2025, Attorney Sheehan sought the following: Regarding Conservation Commission Complaint 25-34, all records relating or referring to[:] [1] The complaint to the Town regarding . . . Rocky Pond Road, Plymouth MA[;] [2] Records relating or referring identity of the person(s) who made the complaint No. 25-34 including the phone number from which the complaint originated, phone logs or records, telephone bills or other records relating to the complaint[;] [3] All reports, notes, correspondence, emails and any other records relating or referring to complaint No. 25-34, the location of the complaint, and the person(s) involved. The Town responded on October 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Attorney Sheehan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3198, was opened as a result. 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Sheehan’s interest in obtaining the requested records shall have 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

Connor Anderson SPR25/3198 Page 2 November 14, 2025 no bearing on the public nature of the records. 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 Town’s October 24th Response In its October 24, 2025 response, the Town provided a link “to a page containing all information [the Town has] on file related to complaint CCC-25-34,” The Town cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to redact the record it provided, and further cited Exemption (c) to withhold other responsive records. Current Appeal In her October 30, 2025 appeal, Attorney Sheehan states, “[t]he Town has invoked Exemption (f) . . . as the basis for redacting the complainant’s identity.” She contends that “Exemption (f) does not apply” to the responsive record provided “because the matter is not [‘]under investigation by Town Officials[’] but is a closed matter.” Attorney Sheehan further notes that “[t]he Town has demonstrated no public interest in protecting the identity of the complainant” and requests that this office, “order the Town to release an unredacted record.” Upon review of the appeal, it appears Attorney Sheehan is not objecting to the Town’s claims under Exemption (c). Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law

Connor Anderson SPR25/3198 Page 3 November 14, 2025 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, 371 Mass at 62. 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 289-290. Exemption (f) is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. In its October 24, 2025 response, under Exemption (f), the Town advised the following: The records have been produced absent minor redactions of information that would identify a voluntary witness/complainant who came forward with respect to the underlying investigation at issue regarding an enforcement matter under investigation by Town Officials. In addition to pertaining to ongoing investigations, exemption (f) has also been held to allow investigative officials, in this case Town officials, to provide an assurance of confidentiality to persons so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1960). For that reason, in this instance, the names, addresses, phone numbers and any other identifying details of voluntary witnesses or complainants may therefore be withheld from disclosure permanently. Reinstein v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 378 Mass.281, 290 (1979). These redactions have been made to the record only where necessary and no whole pages have been redacted.

Connor Anderson SPR25/3198 Page 4 November 14, 2025 Based on the Town’s response, to the extent that the Town has redacted identifying information of “a voluntary witness/complainant[,]” I find that the Town may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Sheehan is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Margaret E. Sheehan, Esq.