Paul Mendes v. Plymouth County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20253622)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 22, 2025 SPR25/3622 Karen Palumbo, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Records Access Officer Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office 166 Main Street Brockton, MA 02301 Dear Attorney Palumbo: I have received the petition of Paul Mendes appealing the response of the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 12, 2025, Mr. Mendes requested, “[a]ll documents and decisions of all meetings and any investigations regarding [an identified individual].” The Office provided a response on August 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Mendes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3622, 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

Karen Palumbo, Esq. SPR25/3622 Page 2 December 22, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Mendes states, “I am requesting that the agency provide me information on this case regarding [an identified individual] who was my aunt and whom I resided with her for 40 years, I also initiated this investigation.” Purpose of request; Status of requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Mendes’ purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Office’s August 13th Response In its August 13, 2025 response, the Office cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and specifically G. L. c. 19[A], § 23 to withhold the records in their entirety. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.”

Karen Palumbo, Esq. SPR25/3622 Page 3 December 22, 2025 The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the Office cited G. L. c. 19A, § 23, which provides in pertinent part as follows: Except as otherwise provided in this section, all records containing personal data which are created, collected, used, maintained or disseminated pursuant to this chapter shall not be public records, and shall be governed by the provisions of chapter sixty-six A, the notice provisions of section sixty-three of chapter thirty and the enforcement provisions of section three B of chapter two hundred and fourteen.... G. L. c. 19A, § 23. In its response, the Office asserted, “[u]nfortunately, we cannot provide you with the documents because the documents are exempt from disclosure under G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26). In particular, the following exemption apply to these the [sic] documents: Protective Service Record, Aged Persons: G. L. c. 19A, § 23.” Based upon the Office’s August 13th response, and as the records are restricted from disclosure in its entirety by the Legislature under G. L. c. 19A, § 23, as it operates through Exemption (a), I find the Office has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 19A, § 23 (providing that these records “shall not be public records”). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Mendes 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 of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul Mendes