William Gazlay v. Massachusetts Department of Higher Education (SPR 20253260)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 18, 2025 SPR25/3260 Christopher J. Grimaldi, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Higher Education One Ashburton Place, Room 1401 Boston MA 02108 Dear Attorney Grimaldi: I have received the petition of William Gazlay appealing the response of the Department of Higher Education (Department/DHE) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). In an email to the Department on October 20, 2025, Mr. Gazlay stated, “[t]ransfer me to whomever handles FOIA requests. I want to know what you . . . said to each other in this deliberate cover up.” The Department responded on November 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Gazlay petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3260, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided additional information to Mr. Gazlay and this office on November 14, 2025 and November 17, 2025. Purpose of request; Identity of requestor In his appeal petition, Mr. Gazlay states, “I am the one who submitted the complaint against UMass Boston, so how can there possibly be any lawyer-client confidentiality?” 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). 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 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

Christopher J. Grimaldi, Esq. SPR25/3260 Page 2 November 18, 2025 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. 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. Current Appeal In his November 4, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Gazlay objects to the Department’s claims under the attorney-client privilege and states, “[t]he fact that they would even claim that confirms that they have conspired and colluded against me.” Mr. Gazlay further notes that he “[wants] this . . . [sic] about UMass Boston being able to claim that they ignore my rights as a patient to request exclusive communication and dissemination of my PHI by email.” He contends, “[t]here is absolutely no risk of a data breach and this M.G.L. c. 93H and 201 CMR 17.04(3) that [an identified representative of the University of Massachusetts, Boston (UMass)] is citing simply does not apply.” Upon review of the appeal file, it is my understanding that this portion of Mr. Gazlay’s appeal relates to a May 5, 2025 email correspondence from a representative of UMass. Accordingly, I decline to opine on this portion of the appeal. If Mr. Gazlay made a separate request for records to UMass and is unsatisfied with the response, he may file an appeal with this office within 90 days. The Department’s November 3rd Response In its November 3, 2025 response, the Department provided some responsive records and withheld others pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, in withholding records, the Department stated, “DHE staff . . . identified records responsive to your request that subject to attorney-client privilege, are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. . . .” In its November 14, 2025 response, the Department indicated that it intends to provide a further response to Mr. Gazlay’s request. Subsequently, in an email to this office on November 17, 2025, a representative of the Department stated, “upon further review, the Department has re-considered its initial determination regarding the applicability of applicable exemptions to two initially withheld records and has produced the two initially withheld records in full response to this request[.]”

Christopher J. Grimaldi, Esq. SPR25/3260 Page 3 November 18, 2025 The Department further confirmed that it did not possess any additional records responsive to Mr. Gazlay’s request and provided a copy of the November 17, 2025 correspondence in which it provided responsive records to Mr. Gazlay that it previously withheld under the attorney-client privilege. Conclusion Where this appeal was opened as a result of the Department’s November 3, 2025 response, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Gazlay may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s November 17, 2025 response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Gazlay