Paul Trant v. Massachusetts State Lottery Commission (SPR 20253466)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 9, 2025 SPR25/3466 Gregory M. Polin, Esq. General Counsel State Lottery Commission 150 Mount Vernon Street Dorchester, MA 02125 Dear Attorney Polin: I have received the petition of Paul Trant appealing the response of the Massachusetts State Lottery Commission (Commission) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 16, 2025, Mr. Trant requested “the book number and ticket number, which is printed on the back, of winning $1 million prize that was claimed on August 23, 2024 in the MA State Lottery “Bonus 50X” $5 instant ticket game. . . . Each Bonus 50X instant ticket sold has the game number 444 followed by the book number and the ticket number. Game 444 book numbers range from 000001 to 080651 and each book number has a range of ticket numbers from 1 to 150.” The Commission responded on November 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Trant petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3466, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Commission provided a further response to Mr. Trant and this office by email on December 4, 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 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

Gregory M. Polin, Esq. SPR25/3466 Page 2 December 9, 2025 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 appeal petition, Mr. Trant contends that: The public has a legitimate interest in Game 444 book numbers range from 000001 to 080651 and each book number range of ticket numbers from 1 to 150. If the winning ticket that I requested this information for does not fall within this range, it will seriously question lottery sales and game integrity. . . . Exemption F also does not apply. There is no assertion to an ongoing law enforcement investigation. This exemption cannot be claimed to withhold public records for some unknown future investigation. The Commission’s November 21st and December 4th Responses In its November 21, 2025 response, the Commission states “that ticket ID numbers for claimed winning prizes are exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemption (b) (internal personnel rules and practices) and exemption (f) (investigatory). This type of data is predominantly used internally by the Lottery and proper performance of necessary government functions will be inhibited by disclosure.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b), (f). In its December 4, 2025 response, the Commission further elaborates on its claims for withholding the responsive records. Exemption (b) Exemption (b) permits the withholding of records that are: Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (b). The general purpose of the cognate federal exemption is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection materials in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have an interest. See Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352,

Gregory M. Polin, Esq. SPR25/3466 Page 3 December 9, 2025 362-70 (1976) (interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption for records which are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432 (1983) (Massachusetts Public Records Law modeled on federal Freedom of Information Act). The courts have interpreted the federal exemption to allow withholding of materials that, if released, could cause agency rules or regulations to be circumvented. See Fiumara v. Higgins, 572 F. Supp. 1093, 1102 (1983) (internal codes are exempt where disclosure may enable outsiders to circumvent agency functions). The analysis employed by the federal courts requires a two-pronged test. Material is exempt if it is predominantly used internally and if disclosed would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. See Marrera v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 622 F. Supp. 51, 55 (D.D.C. 1985) (Bureau of Prisons access and identity codes were properly withheld as materials in which the public would have no legitimate interest or which would compromise security if disclosed). In its December 4th response, the Commission argues the following under Exemption (b): As shown on the Lottery’s website, each of the Lottery’s instant ticket games consist of a fixed number of tickets that are printed with a predetermined number of them being prize-winning tickets. The Lottery’s Bonus 50X instant ticket, which is Game Number 444, consists of 12,096,000 instant tickets and contained within those tickets are three (3) $1,000,000 grand prize-winning tickets. As of December 3, 2025, one of the $1,000,000 grand prize-winning Bonus 50X tickets has been claimed and the other two (2) remain unclaimed. In a previous public records request, [Mr. Trant] requested and were provided the Administrative Bulletin for the Bonus 50X instant ticket game, which conveys that a “Book” of Bonus 50X instant tickets consists of 150 tickets and each “Book” has a six (6) digit Book Number that is printed on the back of each of the 150 instant tickets contained therein. It is the mission of the Lottery to operate in a manner that secures the integrity of its games. Instant ticket Book Numbers are predominantly used internally by the Lottery, and the proper performance of necessary government functions will be inhibited by the disclosure you seek. Book Numbers are used internally by the Lottery for various functions relating to, among other things, the instant ticket game design and prize structure, investigations, as well as the tracking of the game’s sale at Lottery Sales Agent locations throughout the Commonwealth. Additionally, requesters may attempt to calculate the total number of Books contained in an instant ticket game and then seek the Book Numbers of the already claimed grand prize-winning tickets in an effort to gain what they may perceive as an advantage to locating grand prize-winning tickets that have not yet been sold. To be clear, the Lottery does not know what Book Numbers the two (2) unclaimed Bonus 50X $1,000,000 winning instant tickets are contained in and

Gregory M. Polin, Esq. SPR25/3466 Page 4 December 9, 2025 releasing information in a public records request that could lead to the mistaken perception that not all Lottery players are on equal footing with respect to prize odds would undermine the integrity of the Lottery’s games and operations. Based on the information provided in the Commission’s December 4th response, I find that the Commission has met its burden to show how disclosing the book number and ticket number would reveal “internal personnel rules and practices,” and “would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations” concerning the ability to operate in a manner that secures the integrity of the Commission’s games. Consequently, I find the Commission has met its burden to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (b). 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. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). 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. In this case, where the Commission has met its burden to withhold the records under Exemption (b), I find it is unnecessary to address the Commission’s claims under Exemption (f) for withholding the records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Trant is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Gregory M. Polin, Esq. SPR25/3466 Page 5 December 9, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul Trant