Douglass, Joe v. Northampton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260431)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 24, 2026 SPR26/0431 Julie Gaudreau Records Supervisor Northampton Police Department 29 Center Street Northampton, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Gaudreau: I have received the petition of Joe Douglass, of Discrepancy Report, appealing the response of the Northampton Police 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 23, 2026, Mr. Douglass requested the following: For each matter listed below, please produce the internal affairs/investigative file and final disposition records, including, where they exist: complaint/intake materials; assignment documents; investigative reports and attachments; interview summaries or transcripts; findings and decision memos; notices of discipline; suspension/demotion letters; retraining orders; useof- force reviews; and any arbitration/settlement documents that modified discipline. Please also include any “last-chance agreement” or comparable agreement, where applicable, and any records reflecting whether the matter was referred to an outside agency or prosecutor. . . . Records requested (Northampton PD), as reflected in POST entries: 1. [A named individual] — sustained truthfulness matters (“Untruthful in investigation”) from Northampton PD employment, with discipline entries including Written Reprimand (May 2015), Suspension 6–29 days (Dec. 2017), and “Resigned/Retired in Lieu of Discipline” (Dec. 2017), along with related “Other / conduct unbecoming” entries described as “due to previous allegation.” 2. [A named individual] — 2018 matter with two sustained findings (criminal conduct and “Other / conduct unbecoming” described as “due to previous allegation”), with discipline including suspension 30+ days (and any other discipline reflected in Northampton’s records). 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 Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 2 February 24, 2026 3. [A named individual] — Dec. 9, 2021 matter with a sustained criminal-conduct finding described in POST as “Domestic A&B on a Family/Household Member,” plus a related “Other / conduct unbecoming” entry described as “due to previous allegation,” with discipline listed as suspension 1–5 days. 4. [A named individual] — Nov. 15, 2015 matter with sustained “Other criminal conduct” (described in POST as “Domestic Disturbance”) plus a related “Other / conduct unbecoming” entry described as “due to previous allegation,” with discipline listed as “Loss of Time Off.” 5. [A named individual] — July 30, 2024 matter with sustained “Other / conduct unbecoming” described in POST as “alleged domestic violence and disorderly conduct,” with discipline listed as a suspension of 1–5 days (noted as 4 days). 6. [A named individual] — Jan. 31, 2012 sustained truthfulness matter (“Untruthfulness in investigation”), discipline: suspension 1–5 days; and March 18, 2015 sustained criminal-conduct matter described in POST as “Use of Alcohol on Duty/Policy violation of Criminal Conduct (OUI),” discipline: suspension 1–5 days. 7. [A named individual] — March 17, 2015 matter with sustained “Other criminal conduct” described in POST as “OUI Alcohol/reporting MV accident,” with discipline including suspension 30+ days and reassignment; and any related sustained truthfulness and/or conduct-unbecoming entries tied to the same incident as reflected in Northampton’s records. The Department responded on February 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Douglass petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0431, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response on February 18, 2026, and in an email to this office and the Department on February 20, 2026, Mr. Douglass reiterated his objections to the Department’s responses. 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

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 3 February 24, 2026 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. Douglass states the following: 1. Withholding entire internal affairs files under G.L. c. 41, § 97D (domestic violence) Northampton withheld, in full, the internal affairs files for: Rachel Bunce (Case 21-5-IA) Andrew Kohl (Case 15-11-IA) Thomas Briotta (Case 24-2-IA) . . . 2. Exemption (c) privacy redactions in law enforcement misconduct investigations In producing the Cronin (18-3-IA) and Czerwinski (17-10-IA) files, Northampton cited Exemption (c) (privacy) among other grounds. The request concerns internal affairs investigations of police officers. The 2020 police reform law amended the Public Records Law definition of “public records,” and I request that the Supervisor review whether Exemption (c) was applied consistent with the current statutory language governing law enforcement misconduct investigation records. . . . 3. Exemption (f) and other redactions — burden and specificity To the extent Northampton relied on Exemption (f) (investigatory materials) or other exemptions to redact witness identities or other information in these closed administrative matters, the department must meet its burden with a specific showing of how disclosure would prejudice effective law enforcement. If the department contends any portion remains exempt, I request that it be required to provide a detailed explanation tied to the specific redactions. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand Mr. Douglass objects only to the withholding and redaction of the five Internal Affairs files described in his petition. The Department’s February 6th and February 18th Responses In its February 6, 2026 response, the Department identifies the following records: The records in the care, custody, or control of this Department, which are responsive to this request, are five Internal Affairs Investigations, (17-10-IA, 18- 3-IA, 21-5-IA, 15-11-IA, 24-2-IA) and one accident report. Four (4) Internal Affairs Investigations (Officer Czerwinski 2015 IA; Officer McCarthy 2012 IA and 2015 IA; Officer Carney 2015 IA) have been purged in accordance with the Massachusetts records retention schedule. The Department cites Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, and G. L. c. 41, § 97D,

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 4 February 24, 2026 along with Exemptions (c), (f), and (o), for withholding and redacting the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f), (o). 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, 154 (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. G. L. c. 41, § 97D All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties; and provided further, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written, telephonic, facsimile or electronic mail request to law enforcement officers,

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 5 February 24, 2026 district attorneys or assistant district attorneys and all persons authorized to admit persons to bail pursuant to section 57 of chapter 276 G. L. c. 41, § 97D. 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 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 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.

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 6 February 24, 2026 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. 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 Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 7 February 24, 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. Exemption (o) Exemption (o) applies to: the home address, personal email address and home telephone number of an employee of the judicial branch, an unelected employee of the general court, an agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of a political subdivision thereof or of an authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying persons as falling within those categories; provided that the information may be disclosed to an employee organization under chapter 150E, a nonprofit organization for retired public employees under chapter 180, or a criminal justice agency as defined in section 167 of chapter 6. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o).

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 8 February 24, 2026 Internal Affairs Files (21-5-IA), (15-11-IA), and (24-2-IA) In its February 6th response, under Exemption (a) and G. L. c. 41, § 97D, the Department argues the following: The Department has withheld three (3) Internal Affairs Investigations (Officer Bunce 21-5-IA, Officer Kohl 15-11-IA, and Officer Briotta 24-2-IA) in their entirety due to its sensitive nature as documentation of domestic violence and the applicability of the following exemptions and the reasons set forth below: 1. Exemption (a): This exemption applies to records that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute.” In particular, G.L. c. 41, section 97D requires law enforcement agencies to keep the following information confidential. . . . The requestor in this case is not one of the aforementioned individuals or agencies permitted access to the requested record; therefore the Department has withheld this document in its entirety due to its sensitive nature as documentation of domestic violence under Exemption (a) of G.L. c. 41, section 97D, as stated above. In its February 18th response, the Department further argues the following regarding these records: Investigations 21-5-IA, 15-11-IA, and 24-2-IA are being withheld pursuant to Exemption (a), the statutory exemption. Exemption (a) applies to records that are specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. While the Public Records Law generally provides a right of access to public records, that right is restricted where another statute expressly limits disclosure. The records at issue fall within the protections of G.L. c. 41 , § 97D, which governs the dissemination of domestic violence reports. Under § 97D, such records may only be released, upon written request, to the victim, the victim’s attorney, individuals specifically authorized by the victim, prosecutors and victim-witness advocates as defined in G.L. c. 258B, § 1, domestic violence counselors as defined in G.L. c. 233, § 20K, and sexual assault counselors as defined in G.L. c. 233, § 201. The Internal Affairs investigations being requested revolve around incidents involving domestic violence. The underlying facts and circumstances of these matters are intertwined throughout the entirety of each report. Accordingly, the Department is obligated to protect any references to domestic violence, as mandated by law. Unauthorized release of such records may constitute a misdemeanor pursuant to G.L. c. 41 , § 97D, punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 9 February 24, 2026 In addition, the requested records contain highly personal and sensitive information, including personally identifying information, medical information, references to alcohol dependence, and mental health concerns. Two of the reports also reference minor children. These materials are intimate in nature and their disclosure would not serve a paramount public interest. Public release could cause undue embarrassment and damage to the reputations of the individuals involved. In this instance, the substantial privacy interests at stake clearly outweigh any public interest in disclosure. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the records of an internal affairs investigation, in their entirety, fall within the type of records contemplated in G. L. c. 41, § 97D. A records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records for compliance with the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The Department must clarify this. Internal Affairs Files (17-10-IA) and (18-3-IA) In its February 6th response, the Department argues the following: The 2017 record of Officer Czerwinski (17-10-IA) is attached and has been redacted pursuant to Massachusetts Public Records Law due to the applicability of the following exemptions and the reasons set forth below: l. Exemption (c): This exemption 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.” The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. In making that determination, the department has considered the following factors: (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. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The requested record contains names of witnesses, the dissemination of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Witness information is also redacted under the following exemption : 2. Exemption (f): This exemption applies to “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

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 10 February 24, 2026 public interest.” While this exemption is not a blanket exemption it applies to such information, the disclosure of which would prejudice investigative efforts. In particular, it applies to information related to ongoing investigations, confidential investigative techniques and information which directly or indirectly identifies witnesses or informants. The record requested contains names of witnesses/ reporting parties, which if disseminated would discourage individuals from coming forward and reporting crimes. Please note that the inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual. As a result, such information must be withheld/ redacted under the law. The 2018 record of Officer Cronin (18-3-IA) is attached and has been redacted pursuant to Massachusetts Public Records Law due to the applicability of the following exemptions and the reasons set forth below: 1. Exemption (c): This exemption 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.” The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. In making that determination, the department has considered the following factors: (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. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass: 280,292 (2017). The requested records contain medical information regarding a specifically named individual. As a result, such information must be redacted under the law. 2. Exemption (o): This exemption applies to “the home address, personal email address, and home telephone number of and employee of the judicial branch, an unelected employee of the general court, an agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying persons as falling within those categories; provided that the information may be disclosed to an employee organization under chapter 150E, a nonprofit organization for retired public employees under chapter 180, or a criminal justice agency as defined in section 167 of chapter 6.” The records requested contains the home address of the officer involved and as a result, such

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 11 February 24, 2026 information must be redacted under the law. In its February 18th response, the Department provides the following additional information regarding these records: Investigations 17-10-IA and 18-3-IA were previously reviewed, redacted, and uploaded into our digitized records system in redacted form. The Department stands by the redactions made pursuant to Exemption (c). The redactions in both reports are limited in scope. Importantly, the names of the officers who are the subjects of the investigations were not redacted, consistent with the legislative changes intended to increase transparency in Internal Affairs matters. . . . With respect to Investigation 17-10-IA, all redactions consist of the names of witnesses or other involved parties. Disclosure of these names would not alter or impact the substance or nature of the report. These individuals retain a privacy interest in their identities, which is protected under Exemptions (c) and (f). The report itself concerns Officer Czerwinski and the allegations made against her. Regarding Investigation 18-3-IA, the redacted information includes the name of the complainant, which was redacted prior to my review; however, an unredacted copy of the complaint sheet has been provided. Additionally, the officer’s residential street address- referenced multiple times within the report has been redacted pursuant to Exemption (o). The remaining redactions consist of medical information and references to alcohol consumption, which fall within the protections afforded under Exemption (c). None of the redacted information alters or affects the factual substance of the investigation. With regard to Internal Affairs Files (17-10-IA) and (18-3-IA), based on the information provided in the Department’s February 6th and February 18th responses, where the Department has redacted the identifying information of voluntary witnesses under Exemption (f), and has redacted the residential addresses of employees under Exemption (o), I find that the Department has met its burden to redact such information under the Public Records Law. However, with regard to redactions under Exemption (c), the Department is advised that the Supreme Judicial Court has held that Exemption (c) “clearly and unambiguously states that the privacy exemption does not apply to an ‘investigation’ of law enforcement misconduct.” Eric Mack v. Dist. Att’y for the Bristol Dist., 494 Mass. 1, 12 (2024). Additionally, the Court held that the phrase “related to,” as used in Exemption (c), “is construed broadly.” Id. at 12 n.9. Specifically, the Court in Mack held that the exemption did not apply to records related to an investigation into whether two police officers had committed any crimes or violated their department’s use of force policy. Id. at 12. Exemption (c) did not apply even where the investigation concluded there was no basis to charge the officers with crimes. Id. at 6. The Court in Mack explained that “the crime scene photographs, the home security videos, the still images, the names of officers and public officials, and the videotaped public employee interviews each ‘relate[] to a law enforcement misconduct investigation’ and may not be withheld under the

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0431 Page 12 February 24, 2026 privacy exemption.” Id. at 12. In this case, where the requested records consist of law enforcement internal affairs investigation files, I find the Department has not shown how the withheld records are not “records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Consequently, the Department has not met its burden to redact the records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Douglass 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. Douglass may further 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: Joe Douglass