Mary LaCivita, Esq. v. Brockton, City of - Law Department (SPR 20253516)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 11, 2025 SPR25/3516 Megan Bridges, Esq. City Solicitor Law Department City of Brockton 45 School Street Brockton, MA 02301 Dear Attorney Bridges: I have received the petition of Mary LaCivita, Esq., of the Law Offices of Mary R. LaCivita, on behalf of Jean Bradley Derenoncourt, appealing the response of the City of Brockton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 10, 2025, Ms. Derenoncourt requested: [1] The retention policy in effect on November 4, 2025 for information recorded on Brockton Police Department video surveillance cameras located in the areas designated for placement and use of voting stands on November 4, 2025 at [eleven identified] locations[;] [2] The retention policy in effect on November 4, 2025 for information recorded on video surveillance cameras located in the Elections Division rooms on the first floor of City Hall[;] [3] All video surveillance footage recorded on November 4, 2025 on cameras located in the areas designated for placement and use of voting stands on November 4, 2025 at . . . [eleven identified locations][;] [4] All video surveillance footage recorded on and after November 4, 2025 on cameras located in the areas within the Elections Division rooms on the first floor of City Hall[;] [5] All video surveillance footage recorded on and after November 4, 2025 on cameras located in the areas within the basement entrance of City Hall, inside of the elevator, and outside of the election’s commission office. 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

Megan Bridges, Esq. SPR25/3516 Page 2 December 11, 2025 The City responded on November 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney LaCivita petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3516, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided additional information in an email to this office on December 5, 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 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 City’s November 25th Response and December 5th Correspondence In its November 25, 2025 response to Items 1 and 2 of the request, the City stated that it “has no such documentation in its custody or control” and noted that “the City follows the applicable retention requirements” in accordance with “Series Number 0 1.007 of the Municipal Records Retention Schedule, established . . . pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 66, Section 8[.]” The City additionally stated, “[under] this schedule, audio/visual tape or digital recordings, including security and surveillance tapes, are required to be retained for one month.” In its November 25, 2025 response, the City additionally provided the following under Exemption (n) to withhold records responsive to Items 3, 4, and 5 of the request, in their entirety: The recordings you have requested originate from surveillance cameras installed by the Brockton Police Department as part of security measures designed to protect the public from threats to their safety. Disclosure of these recordings would reveal sensitive information, including, but not limited to, the locations of the cameras, the quality of the video footage, and the scope of the cameras’ ranges and operational capabilities. Releasing such details would compromise public safety and undermine the effectiveness of these security systems. Accordingly, these recordings must be withheld from public inspection.

Megan Bridges, Esq. SPR25/3516 Page 3 December 11, 2025 Subsequently, in a December 5, 2025 email to this office, a representative of the City stated that “the fact that some of the cameras may be visible to the naked eye does not negate the security concerns cited in my response.” The City representative additionally advised, “[t]hese are dome cameras that . . . do not reveal the quality of the footage, the scope of its coverage and its operational capabilities” even if “the dome itself may be visible to the naked eye[.]” Further, the City representative explained, “the fact that footage was used as evidence in a prosecution for the purposes of effective law enforcement in the past does not mandate disclosure of (substantially more revealing) footage in all future public records requests.” Current appeal In her November 28, 2025 appeal petition, Attorney LaCivita objects to the City’s claims under Exemption (n) to deny Items 3, 4, and 5 of the request and states, “[the] footage requested from the various polling locations and from Brockton City Hall is from dome ceiling cameras that are visible to the naked eye.” She further maintains, “[none] of the cameras are hidden and thus, it is false that producing the footage would compromise the existence, location, configuration and capabilities of the cameras.” She additionally contends, “footage from surveillance cameras owned by the Brockton Police Department is already in the public domain” and explains that “[a] prior wrongful prosecution [she] defended . . . involved the production by the Brockton Police Department of surveillance footage from 5 separate cameras location [sic] in Champion High School in Brockton.” She states, “the footage in that case was viewed multiple times in a public trial and viewed by many members of the public at that time” and further notes that the “City posed absolutely no objection to public safety or otherwise when voluntarily producing that surveillance footage from visible cameras.” Attorney LaCivita further argues in her appeal that “there is a substantial public interest in the recount in which this footage is a key element[,]” and provides, “[t]he City’s refusal to produce this footage will hinder the process of the recount which has involved so many irregularities that [an identified] Brockton City Councilor-at-Large . . . recently proposed a Resolve to bring the Elections Commissioners before the City Council [‘]to identify where [the City] could have done better. . . .[’]” Additionally, upon review of the appeal file, it appears Attorney LaCivita is not objecting to the City’s response to Items 1 and 2 of her request. Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable

Megan Bridges, Esq. SPR25/3516 Page 4 December 11, 2025 judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA at 290. Based on the City’s November 25, 2025 response and subsequent December 5, 2025 correspondence to this office, I find that the City did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the records responsive to Items 3, 4, and 5 of the request pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the City has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the records are “likely to jeopardize public safety.” See PETA at 289-90. Further, the City did not identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. It is also unclear if the City could provide segregable portions of the responsive records. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The City must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney LaCivita with a response to Items 3, 4, and 5 of the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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.

Megan Bridges, Esq. SPR25/3516 Page 5 December 11, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mary LaCivita, Esq.