Stokes, Brandon v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20260126)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 28, 2026 SPR26/0126 Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. Records Access Officer Assistant General Counsel Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7 News WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 22, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “all MBTA surveillance video related to the Oct. 1, 2024 derailment of a Green Line train in Somerville (NTSB number RRD24FR017).” The MBTA responded on December 23, 2205, and assigned reference number R001550- 122225 to this request. Unsatisfied with the MBTA’s response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0126, 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

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0126 Page 2 January 28, 2026 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. Stokes contends that: Although the NTSB has concluded its investigation, the MBTA now claims the matter is still under investigation by other authorities. The NTSB is the leading investigative authority on incidents involving mass transit. The NTSB has publicly opened its docket with various materials including transcripts of interviews with MBTA personnel, mechanical data, maintenance records, etc. The MBTA’s December 23rd and January 22nd Response In its December 23, 2025 and January 22, 2026 responses, the MBTA cites Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: 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

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0126 Page 3 January 28, 2026 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 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. In its December 23rd response, the MBTA argues the following: [Y]our public records request seeks information that is exempt from disclosure under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(f), which exempts certain investigatory materials. Specifically, it applies to materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by investigatory officials that, if disclosed, “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” According to information available to this office, the incident depicted in the requested video is the subject of an open and active investigation with DPU. Disclosing the video prior to the investigation’s conclusion is likely to jeopardize the cooperation of witnesses, hinder investigative efforts by revealing potential leads, or lead to interim conclusions that may change based on additional facts that are gathered over the course of the ongoing investigation.

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0126 Page 4 January 28, 2026 In its January 22nd responses, an attorney for the MBTA further explains that “I am writing to confirm that the investigation by the DPU of this incident remains ongoing. The MBTA is prohibited from releasing any investigatory materials, such as video, until the investigation is complete.” In this case, where the video pertains to an ongoing investigation and its disclosure “. . . is likely to jeopardize the cooperation of witnesses [and] hinder investigative efforts,” I find the MBTA may permissibly withhold the responsive record from disclosure under Exemption (f) at this time. Please be aware that the change in the status of the investigation could impact the applicability of Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Stokes 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes