Folk, Jamie v. Attorney General's Office (SPR 20260201)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 4, 2026 SPR26/0201 Hanne Rush, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Rush: I have received the petition of Jamie Folk, of Rodenfolk Productions, appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 5, 2026, Mr. Folk requested “... the interviews with [identified individuals] to start? Also could you send an itemized list of all the interviews you have and approximate cost of each?” The AGO responded on January 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Folk petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0201, 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

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/0201 Page 2 February 4, 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 January 21, 2025 appeal, Mr. Folk stated, “I believe the original fees were excessive and then, when I asked for less records and clarity as to how many they had, they changed their mind and denied the request outright.” The AGO’s January 20th response In its January 20, 2026 response, the AGO referenced its December 30, 2025 response, which included a fee estimate of $1,781.25, and cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law. The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response the AGO stated, . . . Please be advised that, after further examination of the records, the AGO has

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/0201 Page 3 February 4, 2026 determined records responsive to you request are mandatorily withheld from disclosure in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(a), as they constitute and/or contain information specifically and/or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by various statutes, including M.G.L. c. 213, § 3, Mass. R. Crim. P. 5(d), M.G.L. c. 234A, § 8; M.G.L. c. 277, § 5 (grand jury materials); and Trial Court Rule VIII (Uniform Rules on Impoundment Procedure). See also WBZ TV- 4 v. Dist. Atty. for the Suffolk Dist., 408 Mass. 595, 599 (1990) (citations omitted) (“The requirement that grand jury proceedings remain secret is deeply rooted in the common law of the Commonwealth.”). Although the AGO cites several statutes to withhold responsive records, it is unclear how each of the statutes applies, to withhold the records in their entirety. For Exemption (a) to apply, said statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Consequently, it is not clear how each of the above cited statutes, specifically or necessary implication permits the AGO to withhold the requested records, in their entirety, under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. 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 . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the AGO is to provide Mr. Folk 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. Mr. Folk may appeal the substantive nature of the AGO’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jamie Folk