Brandon Stokes v. Massachusetts College of Art and Design (SPR 20253706)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR25/3706 Brendan O’Bryan Records Access Officer Office of the President Massachusetts College of Art and Design 621 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 Dear Mr. O’Bryan: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7NEWS WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the Massachusetts College of Art and Design (College) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 4, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested: [1] [S]urveillance video beginning around 3:49am on 11/1/25 showing 3 people walking southwest along Huntington Avenue (1 of them is wearing white Croc shoes and stuffing sweatpants into his shorts; another is wearing a dark hooded jacket and black sneakers)[;] [2] [S]urveillance video showing their movements until they leave the MassArt campus. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the College. See SPR25/3374 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 24, 2025). In my November 24th determination, I granted the College a time extension of 20 business days to respond to the request. The College subsequently responded on December 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the College’s response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3706, was opened as a result. 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

Brendan O’Bryan SPR25/3706 Page 2 January 15, 2026 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 College’s December 16th Response In its December 16, 2025 response, the College cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Stokes argued against the applicability of Exemption (f) and stated, “[b]ecause the descriptions and actions of the people depicted in the requested public records are detailed in publicly-available court documents, and their actions happened in public spaces, it’s unclear how the records can be withheld in their entirety.” Mr. Stokes also provided a copy of a criminal complaint related to the events described in the public records request. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, this office reviewed the docket of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and learned that criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Stokes’ request, remains active and ongoing. See United States of America v. Logan David Patterson and Dominick Frank Cardoza (District Court, D. Massachusetts; Docket Number 1:25-mj-03286). 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:

Brendan O’Bryan SPR25/3706 Page 3 January 15, 2026 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 Exemption (f) 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: Brandon Stokes