Andrew R. Puglia v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20253589)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 18, 2025 SPR25/3589 David Shapiro, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Shapiro: I have received the petition of Andrew Puglia appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 26, 2025, Mr. Puglia requested, regarding a community meeting concerning a proposed hotel, “the sign-in sheet(s) containing the names, residential addresses, if applicable, and email addresses, if applicable, of those who attended said community meeting in person, as well as those individuals who participated in said meeting via ZOOM.” The City responded on September 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Puglia petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3589, 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. 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

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/3589 Page 2 December 18, 2025 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 September 11th Response In its September 11, 2025 response, the City provided documents responsive to Mr. Puglia’s request and stated “[p]ersonal email addresses have been redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Puglia states, “the City’s redaction of the email addresses of the signatories to the meeting sign-in sheet fails to meet the legal standard as an exemption from M.G.L. c. 66 s. 10.” 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.

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/3589 Page 3 December 18, 2025 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. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City contacted the Public Records Division via email on December 17, 2025. The City cited SPR14/626 and SPR13/077 in support of withholding personal email addresses. Based on the City’s response, I find the City may permissibly withhold personal email addresses from disclosure under the second clause Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Puglia is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Puglia