Robert Choquette v. Natick, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253455)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 8, 2025 SPR25/3455 Danielle Corda Administrative Assistant Records Division Natick Police Department 20 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Ms. Corda: I have received the petition of Robert Choquette appealing the response of the Natick Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 18, 2025, Mr. Choquette requested “any and all public records involving [an identified individual].” The Department responded on November 19, 2025 and November 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Choquette petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3455, 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. 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

Danielle Corda SPR25/3455 Page 2 December 8, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s November 19th and November 20th Responses In its November 19, 2025, response, the Department stated “[a]ttached to this email is a copy of 2 reports involving [an identified individual], per your records request. Please note that these reports have been redacted per the Massachusetts Public Record Law, Exemption C ‘Privacy.’” The Department further responded on November 20, 2025, stating, “you have been provided a sanitized copy per Public Record Law Exemption C Privacy.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Choquette states, “it is my contention Natick Police Department is incorrectly applying exemption C.” 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 – 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).

Danielle Corda SPR25/3455 Page 3 December 8, 2025 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 November 19, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]his incident report contains names, addresses, and other information about other individuals. Releasing this information could impact on their personal privacy and reputation.” The Department further stated in its November 20, 2025 response “[a]ll names and personal information have been removed to protect the individuals named in this report for any potential harm to their reputation and invasion of personal privacy.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what “other information” has been redacted from the responsive records. Further, it is uncertain how the names and addresses constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally not clear whether the redacted information is available from other sources. Also, the Department did not provide 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. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Choquette with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and it’s 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. Choquette may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robert Choquette