Shane M. Fitzpatrick v. Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (SPR 20253695)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 30, 2025 SPR25/3695 Christopher D. Guerin, Esq. Special Counsel Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance One Ashburton Place, 15th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Guerin: I have received the petition of Shane M. Fitzpatrick appealing the response of the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (Division/DCAMM) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 22, 2025, Mr. Fitzpatrick requested the following records related to an identified incident: [1] Security Camera Footage All available lobby and elevator-area surveillance video recorded at … Ashburton Place on November 18, 2025, from 2:45 PM to 5:00 PM, including: - Lobby cameras - Elevator bank cameras - Elevator interior cameras (if applicable) [2] Security Logs Any security or building logs maintained by DCAMM or Allied Universal for the same timeframe, including: - Lobby security notes/log entries - Incident logs - Visitor logs (if maintained) - Any written record generated about the incident [3] Security/Building Policies Copies of the following building policies in effect on November 18, 2025: - Elevator access policy 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

Christopher D. Guerin, Esq. SPR25/3695 Page 2 December 30, 2025 - Visitor/public entry procedures - Any written policies provided to lobby security regarding identification or public access… [4] DCAMM or Allied Universal Communications Any internal communications (email or incident notifications) between DCAMM staff and/or Allied Universal security staff about the incident occurring in the lobby/elevator area on Nov. 18 between 2:45 PM and 5:00 PM. (Only communications that DCAMM already has – no outside agency communications requested.) [5] Identification of Any DCAMM or Allied Staff Who Witnessed the Event Including the female employee inside the elevator during the incident, if her identity is known or listed in any security report. The Division responded on December 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Division’s response, Mr. Fitzpatrick petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3695, 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 December 15th Response In its December 15, 2025 response, the Division cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold records responsive to Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the request. The Division also cited Exemption (n) to withhold the records responsive to Item 3 of the request.

Christopher D. Guerin, Esq. SPR25/3695 Page 3 December 30, 2025 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Fitzpatrick argued, “[t]he denials are overbroad and legally insufficient because DCAMM failed to meet its statutory burden to justify withholding and failed to conduct segregability analysis as required by Massachusetts Public Records Law.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, this office reviewed the docket of the trial court and learned that criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Fitzpatrick’s request, remains active and ongoing in Suffolk County District Court. See Commonwealth vs. Fitzpatrick, Shane (Boston Municipal Court, Central Division; Docket Number 2501CR005802). Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (f) and (n) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of the above matter could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shane M. Fitzpatrick