Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of (SPR 20260358)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 18, 2026 SPR26/0358 Captain Corey S. Rutledge Saugus Fire Department 298 Central Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Captain Rutledge: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Saugus Fire Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 7, 2025, Ms. Valentino requested, “... Dispatch call log relating to the incident in the attachment below … [which occurred at an identified address] around 2 pm on December 16.” The Department responded on February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0358, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department provided a further response on February 10, 2026, which Ms. Valentino appealed. 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

Captain Corey S. Rutledge SPR26/0358 Page 2 February 18, 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 her February 3, 2026 appeal, Ms. Valentino asserts, “… it is over redact[ed] for you to deny the information on the basis that it was a medical call.” In her February 10, 2026 appeal, Ms. Valentino states, “… the [Department] did not provide the rationale for the redacted sections.” The Department’s February 2nd and February 10th Responses In its February 2, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[w]e have completed the work in reference to your request as referenced above. The response is given below.” In its February 10, 2026 response, the Department stated, “… [the] attached file was sent to Ms. Valentino via her FOIA request 2026-0027. The redacted portion was done due to the nature of the call being a medical (exemption C).” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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 Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual is 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. Id. 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). To the extent that the records contain medical information that relates to a specifically named individual, I find the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, upon review, it is unclear if all the redactions relate solely to medical information relating to a specifically named individual. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and

Captain Corey S. Rutledge SPR26/0358 Page 3 February 18, 2026 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). The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department 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 appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino