Gianna Valentino v. Chief Medical Examiner's Office (SPR 20253862)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR25/3862 Eric B. Hogberg, Esq. General Counsel Records Access Officer Office of the Chief Medical Examiner 720 Albany Street Boston, MA 02118 Dear Attorney Hogberg: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (Office/OCME) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 30, 2025, Ms. Valentino requested “all documents relating to the death of [an identified individual]. The date of death is December 16, 2025.” The Office responded on December 31, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3862, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Office provided a further response to Ms. Valentino and this office on January 5, 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 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

Eric B. Hogberg, Esq. SPR25/3862 Page 2 January 15, 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 her appeal petition, Ms. Valentino argues the following: In my request, I requested all documents relating to the death of [a named individual]. I did not request the autopsy specifically as I was aware that . . . I was not entitled. However, I did request all documents. The decision letter denied me access to the autopsy. That is not what I asked for. Therefore, I’m appealing this due to the fact, my request was actually not responded to. (autopsy vs all document) Please process the appeal as a letter did not address my request for all documents. Example, There could be a cremation permit request that the medical examiner had to sign off on… if there was because he was cremated. there could be many things at the office. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand Ms. Valentino does not object to the withholding of the autopsy report, but only objects to other records being withheld. The Office’s December 31st and January 5th Response In its December 31, 2025 and January 5, 2026 responses, the Office states that it is withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). In its December 31st response, the Office explains the following: Please be advised that in Massachusetts autopsy reports are not public records. Accordingly, the OCME is denying your request for the autopsy report pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (a), specifically, the statutory exemption set forth in G.L. c. 38, § 2, which states that autopsy reports are not public, and G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (c), the medical and privacy exemption to the public records law. See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132 (1989) (autopsy reports constitute exempt medical information). The OCME may provide autopsy reports to a decedent’s surviving spouse or legal next of kin, by court order, or through the provisions set forth in 505 CMR 1. Death Certificates, however, are public records that can be requested from the Clerk’s office for the City or Town the death occurred. In its January 5th response, the Office further explains the following:

Eric B. Hogberg, Esq. SPR25/3862 Page 3 January 15, 2026 As a preliminary matter, please be advised that this death investigation remains open and ongoing. Furthermore, although this request is extremely broad, as you concede in your correspondence, please be advised that investigatory records regarding the death investigation for Richard Wells are not public pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f), the Investigatory Exemption, which provides that custodians may withhold investigatory materials compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. In addition to the investigatory exemption, and G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (a), the statutory exemption set forth in G.L. c. 38, § 2, which states that autopsy reports are not public (previously discussed), death investigation records contain personal, private and sensitive information. As such, the OCME is withholding death investigation records pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7; Twenty-sixth (c), the medical and privacy exemption to the public records law. Analysis under the privacy exemption requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. The factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake are: (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. Given the sensitivity of death investigations, and the intimate and personal nature of the information contained in death investigation records, specifically discussing an individual’s death and the surrounding circumstances, the OCME has determined that the individual’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to know. Notwithstanding the foregoing, due to the broad nature of your request, you may attempt to narrow your request. 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). First Clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named

Eric B. Hogberg, Esq. SPR25/3862 Page 4 January 15, 2026 individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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. 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. Based on the Office’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records, in their entirety, constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Office did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The Office must clarify these matters. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of:

Eric B. Hogberg, Esq. SPR25/3862 Page 5 January 15, 2026 investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that

Eric B. Hogberg, Esq. SPR25/3862 Page 6 January 15, 2026 they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. Based on the Office’s response, it is unclear how the withheld records constitute investigatory materials. Also, the Office did not demonstrate how disclosure of the withheld records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest,” as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). The Office must clarify this. Additionally, it is unclear from the Office’s response, which specific records the Office intends to withhold. The Office must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemptions (c) and (f). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). It is further uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. The Office must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Valentino with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Valentino may further appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino