Baggett, Sean v. Hingham, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260213)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 4, 2026 SPR26/0213 Kathryn M. Roberts Superintendent Hingham Public Schools 220 Central Street Hingham, MA 02043 Dear Ms. Roberts: I have received the petition of Sean Baggett appealing the response of the Hingham Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 1, 2025, for the period of “July 1, 2022 to the present,” Mr. Baggett requested: [1] Emails and Electronic Communications Please produce all emails, text messages, internal chat messages (Teams, Google Chat, or similar platforms), electronic messages, and any associated attachments or metadata that contain any of the following [ten] identifiers… [2] Internal Documents and Notes Please produce all internal memoranda, notes, meeting minutes, agendas, summaries, draft or final documents, calendar entries, or internal communications referencing [an identified individual] (or any identified listed above), or referencing or relating to MCAD Case No. 22NEM00334. [3] Complaints or Investigation Involving [an identified individual] Please provide any records of internal complaints, grievances, reports, employee concerns, or investigations that mention or involve [an identified individual] while employed by Hingham Public Schools. On December 5, 2025, the School provided a fee estimate of $183,785.30 to produce records responsive to Items 1 and 2 of the request, and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold records responsive to Item 3. Mr. Baggett subsequently contested the fee estimate and stated that he was “willing to refine the request” as follows: 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

Kathryn M. Roberts SPR26/0213 Page 2 February 4, 2026 Moving forward, please exclude the following [five] identifiers contained in my 12/1 request… Other identifiers described in the original 12/1 request remain valid and in scope. The School responded on December 18, 2025 and January 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Mr. Baggett petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0213, 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. 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 School’s December 18th and January 9th Responses In its December 18, 2025 response, the School provided 88 pages of records responsive to Items 1 and 2 of the request, redacted pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. In addition, the School reasserted its claim to withhold records responsive to Item 3 under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In a subsequent response on January 9, 2026, following a further objection from Mr. Baggett, counsel for the School expanded upon its exemption claims. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Baggett argued that the School’s claims under the attorney- client privilege and Exemption (c) are improper and claimed that the School did not properly detail its search.

Kathryn M. Roberts SPR26/0213 Page 3 February 4, 2026 Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client's search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapa & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records “shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). 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 – Personnel Information While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held

Kathryn M. Roberts SPR26/0213 Page 4 February 4, 2026 that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. 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. Items 1 and 2 In its December 18, 2026 response, regarding the redacted production of records, the School stated, “[a]ll redactions in these documents are based on attorney/client privilege.” In its January 9, 2026 response, the School added: A privilege log… [is] not a requirement of the public records process. Rather, a public entity is required to identify the reason for the redaction (attorney/client privilege) and provide as much unredacted information as possible without jeopardizing that privilege. [The School] can confirm that a page by page review

Kathryn M. Roberts SPR26/0213 Page 5 February 4, 2026 was conducted when redactions were made. Accordingly the [School] believes it has met its obligations with regard to that aspect of your request. Based on the School’s responses, it is unclear how the redactions to the responsive records fall under the attorney-client privilege. The School must provide a detailed description of the communications withheld under the attorney-client privilege, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such withheld communications, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). The School must also clarify whether all of the communications withheld under the attorney-client privilege were between a client and an attorney during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such. Further, the School must also provide information regarding whether the communications were made in confidence and demonstrate that the privilege has not been waived. The School must clarify these matters. Item 3 Regarding Item 3 of the request, in its December 18, 2025 response, the School stated, “…documents responsive to your third request are being withheld in their entirety as the responsive records include personnel record information or private personal information which is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law.” In its January 9, 2026 response, the School explained further, “[w]ith regard to the withholding of records in response to Request #3, this is permitted under [Exemption (c) of] the Public Records law… [The School] has reviewed the requested records and determined that withholding responsive records in their entirety is appropriate under this analysis.” Although the School indicates that it is withholding the records responsive to Item 3 of the request under both clauses of Exemption (c), it is unclear how the records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is also uncertain how the School may withhold the responsive records in their entirety under the privacy clause of Exemption (c). The School has not demonstrated how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal that would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The School must also 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. Id. It should also be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See 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). The School must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is uncertain the types of documents responsive to Item 3 the School withheld from disclosure. The School is reminded that to deny access to a record under the

Kathryn M. Roberts SPR26/0213 Page 6 February 4, 2026 Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). As such, the School must identify the records it withheld from disclosure under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Baggett 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. Baggett may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sean Baggett Sarah C. Spatafore, Esq.