Robert Guerrini v. Division of Professional Licensure (SPR 20253459)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 8, 2025 SPR25/3459 Jean McCarthy Records Access Officer Division of Professional Licensure 1000 Washington Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02118 Dear Ms. McCarthy: I have received the petition of Robert Guerrini appealing the response of the Division of Professional Licensure (Division) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 10, 2025, Mr. Guerrini requested “all public records [relating to] board meetings during which determinations related to my complaints were discussed or made.” This includes: [1] The date, time, and location of the board meeting(s) referenced in the correspondence from [a specified individual]; [2] The names and titles of all attendees, including board members, staff, or any other individuals present; [3] All meeting minutes, notes, summaries, recordings, or transcripts of discussions relevant to my complaints (Dockets 2025-000582 through 2025- 000585-IT-ENF); [4] Any materials, exhibits, or documents reviewed or relied upon by the board in connection with those complaints; [5] Any votes taken or determinations made regarding the matter, including any documentation of the legal or regulatory basis for such determinations[.] Also on October 10, 2025, Mr. Guerrini modified his request to include: [1] All complaints filed under my name or referring to the above incident[;] [2] Any investigation notes, findings, or reports[;] [3] Correspondence between your office and the school, or any other involved parties[;] [4] Any witness statements or related records collected[;] [5] The legal reason and full explanation as to why I, the victim (i.e., the 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

Jean McCarthy SPR25/3459 Page 2 December 8, 2025 consumer), was never interviewed during the investigation[;] [6] A full explanation of the applicable laws and regulations relied upon in making each determination[;] [7] Complete disclosure and explanation of each of the following Complaint Dockets: 2025-000582 through 2025-000585-IT-ENF, including what specific laws and regulations were applied in each determination[;] [8] An explanation of why your office did not contact my medical providers or request a status of my medical condition, despite the fact that I was attending the school under state and federal funding due to my disabilities[;] [9] If, as reported, the incident was classified as an assault by another student, please provide the names of those alleged to have assaulted me, as required under applicable law[;] [10] Please also explain why an educational institution operating without a valid license was determined not to be in violation of law[.] The Division responded on October 23, 2025, October 27, 2025, and October 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Division’s responses, Mr. Guerrini petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3459, 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 custodian must provide the responsive records The Division’s October 23rd, October 27th and October 28th Responses In its October 23, 2025 and October 27, 2025 responses, the Division provided a link to responsive records redacted pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law.

Jean McCarthy SPR25/3459 Page 3 December 8, 2025 In subsequent correspondence with the Division, Mr. Guerrini expressed difficulty accessing the link and requested that the responsive records be provided in “PDF or paper format.” In its October 28, 2025 response, the Division stated, “...the documents are too large to send via email. The DOL will be mailing a CD/USB that contains the files in PDF format… If you would like access to the documents sooner, please use the link previously provided.” Mr. Guerrini subsequently confirmed that he received a flash drive containing responsive records in the mail on November 11, 2025. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Guerrini argued that the records are: [1] illegible or corrupted[;] [2] incomplete or missing[;] [3] redacted in ways that appear inconsistent with the Public Records Law[;] [4] poorly scanned and impossible to read[.] 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). First Clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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.

Jean McCarthy SPR25/3459 Page 4 December 8, 2025 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). 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. Under Exemption (c), the Division stated, “…such information, if present, including but not limited to, email addresses, telephone numbers, personal addresses, medical information, and any other highly personal data, has been redacted from the materials provided.” To the extent that the responsive records contain the medical information of a specifically identified individual, I find that the Division may properly withhold such portions under Exemption (c). Further, although the Division may properly withhold the personal email addresses of specifically identified individuals, it is unclear how all of the Division’s redactions fall under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In this case, the Division has not established how the withheld telephone numbers, personal addresses, and “any other highly personal data” constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Division must also 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. The Division must clarify these matters.

Jean McCarthy SPR25/3459 Page 5 December 8, 2025 Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law 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 v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). 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. at 290 n.18. 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 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption 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. Under Exemption (f), the Division stated, “[c]omplainant names have been redacted from the materials.” Based on the Division’s response, I find the Division may properly claim Exemption (f) in withholding from the responsive records the identity and any information that will directly or indirectly identify complainants or voluntary witnesses. See Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248 (redactions may be appropriate under Exemption (f) where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses). As such, the Division has met its burden to withhold the complainant names under Exemption (f).

Jean McCarthy SPR25/3459 Page 6 December 8, 2025 Additional Records Based on the information provided in the appeal petition, it is also unclear if the Division possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the Division must clarify whether it possesses the “several key documents” that Mr. Guerrini claims are missing from the production. 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 the requestor in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). The Division must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Division is ordered to provide Mr. Guerrini 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. Guerrini may appeal the substantive nature of the Division’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robert Guerrini