Ronald Roy v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20253754)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 7, 2026 SPR25/3754 Mark Relation, Esq. Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 225 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Ronald Roy appealing the response of the Worcester 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 December 15, 2025, Mr. Roy submitted the following request: I read the DA’s press release regarding [a named individual] who was arraigned in Worcester County Superior Court on December 4 2025 on the four counts and held without bail. The case is next scheduled for January 8, 2026. Is there a case number to reference? The Office responded on December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Roy petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3754, 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 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/3754 Page 2 January 7, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Roy contends: The denial wrongly cites G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) and Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59 (1976), to withhold it as non-public in an ongoing case. However, MA law allows public access to criminal case numbers and basic docket info via masscourts.org, even for pending matters. Releasing the case number isn’t prejudicial to discovery and fits no exemption. I request the Supervisor of Records order the immediate release of the associated case number. The Office’s December 17th Response In its December 17, 2025 response, the Office states the following: The District Attorney’s Office has received your public records request for information regarding an open criminal case. The District Attorney’s Office is unable to provide the requested information at this time as public record. When public record requests are made during the course of ongoing criminal cases, “discovery should follow normal procedures in criminal cases where its availability lies in the discretion of the trial judge under standards developed by this court.” Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976); see G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Once the criminal case has been closed, this office will review any materials related to your request and fulfill your request to the extent possible under the public record law. 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. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Worcester Superior Court. See

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR25/3754 Page 3 January 7, 2026 Commonwealth v. Snehal Ansh Srivastava, Worcester Superior Court Docket No. 2585CR00317 (Dec. 4, 2025). 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 (a) to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Roy