Rick Sobey v. Department of Correction (SPR 20253403)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 3, 2025 SPR25/3403 Kate Silvia Director of Communications Department of Correction Legal Division 70 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02110-1327 Dear Ms. Silvia: I have received the petition of Rick Sobey, of the Boston Herald, appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 29, 2025, Mr. Sobey requested, “... the names of the current and former inmates who received payouts from the $6 million settlement arising from early 2020 at Souza-Baranowski. I’m seeking the specific settlement amounts for each plaintiff.” The Department responded on November 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Sobey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3403, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on December 2, 2025. 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 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

Kate Silvia SPR25/3399 Page 2 December 3, 2025 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 Department’s November 17th response In its November 17, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. The Department stated the following: Please be advised that the settlement agreement in the class action was only recently approved by the Court and the specific amounts to be paid to each class member has not yet been determined, as the Comptroller’s Office is still processing any potential interceptors. As such, no payments have been made to date. Regardless, names of incarcerated individuals who receive monetary compensation as a result of settlement agreements are withheld from public disclosure based on statutory exemptions G.L. c. 6, § 167 and G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(a) & (c) as disclosure “could endanger the privacy or safety of the subject individuals”. Opinion of the Supervisor of Public Records, SPR24/0886. Dissemination of monetary settlements with incarcerated individuals has the potential to create safety and security concerns inside correctional facilities, such as the strong-arming of the compensated individual by other incarcerated individuals, as well as outside correctional facilities, such as the targeting of family members of the compensated individual by associates of other incarcerated individuals. Subsequently, the Department sent a supplemental response on December 2, 2025, and stated, “... the matter is still pending before the court as a Stipulation of Dismissal has not yet been filed and will not be filed until payment of the Settlement Amount. The case is Dwayne Diggs, et. al. v. Carol Mici, et. al.; United States District Court (Worcester), USDC 4:22-cv- 40003-MRG.” Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.

Kate Silvia SPR25/3399 Page 3 December 3, 2025 In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rick Sobey