Jeremy Theerman v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253249)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 18, 2025 SPR25/3249 Alexandra Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Attorney Kalkounis: I have received the petition of Jeremy Theerman 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 18, 2025, Mr. Theerman requested, “... the pawn store inventory reports from the above pawn shop for the last two months, so from July 18, 2025 through today’s date.” The City provided a response on October 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Theerman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3249, 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. 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 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 Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3249 Page 2 November 18, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition on November 3, 2025, Mr. Theerman contends: I specified the pawn shop name and address. On October 3, 2025 I received a response, which was a police report related to that business and nothing else. I was given no explanation as to how the provided records were responsive. There was no explanation as to why the records requested were not provided. Mr. Theerman further clarified, “I’m not concerned about the redaction. My appeal is addressing the failure of the WPD to provide specific records I requested.” Based on Mr. Theerman’s appeal, he does not appear to be contesting the redactions under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The City’s October 3rd Response On October 3, 2025, the City provided a responsive record in redacted form, and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. 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 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

Alexandra Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3249 Page 3 November 18, 2025 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 3rd response, the City explained that “some of the records requested are subject to redaction under Massachusetts’ Public Records Law” and argued the following: The second clause of exemption (c), the privacy exemption is applicable when the requested records implicate privacy interests. A record that invades privacy is deemed public only if “the public interest in obtaining information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy.” Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 156 (1979). The applicability of the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” exemption to any particular record “requires a balancing between any claimed invasion of privacy and the interest in the public in disclosure.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 419 Mass. 852, 858 (1995). 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. Additional Records Based on the City’s response, in conjunction with Mr. Theerman’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the City possesses “the pawn store inventory reports from the above pawn shop for the last two months.” The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether additional records exist.

Alexandra Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3249 Page 4 November 18, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Theerman 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. Mr. Theerman 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: Jeremy Theerman