Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of (SPR 20260364)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 13, 2026 SPR26/0364 Jeannette Meredith Records Access Officer Town of Saugus 298 Central Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Ms. Meredith: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Town of Saugus (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2026, Ms. Valentino requested, “the police incident report from the same call to be released to me with proper redactions. Unit Police fire and EMS were dispatched to [an identified address…” The Town provided a response on February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0364, 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. See 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

Jeannette Meredith SPR26/0364 Page 2 February 13, 2026 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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 Town’s February 2nd Response In its February 2, 2026 response, the Town withheld the responsive record under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In her February 3, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. Valentino stated, “I’m asking the state to order the town to release the record, and if appropriate redact section that are exempt from disclosure, and if there are sections exempt, they must provide the legal rationale for withholding that information.” 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 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). Under Exemption (c), the Town states, “[t]he incident is still open and due to the fact it was a medical call…we will be unable to release the incident report when it is approved/closed.” Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions 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

Jeannette Meredith SPR26/0364 Page 3 February 13, 2026 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. Upon review, to the extent that the record contains medical information that relates to a specifically named individual(s), I find the Town may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, it remains unclear how the record, in its entirety, contains medical information. Further it is uncertain why the record must be withheld in its entirety. The Town must explain whether the record can be redacted in order to protect the medical information of identified individuals. 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Valentino with a response to her 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino Alisa McCarthy