Cimino, Victor v. Abington, Town of - Fire Department (SPR 20260437)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 24, 2026 SPR26/0437 John W. Glynn Fire Chief Abington Fire Department 1040 Bedford Street Abington, MA 02351 Dear Chief Glynn: I have received the petition of Victor Cimino, of Pro Realty, LLC, appealing the response of the Abington 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 30, 2026, Mr. Cimino requested the following records: [1] The complete NFIRS (National Fire Incident Reporting System) Incident Report, including all narratives, supplemental narratives, and officer remarks. [2] Any and all Thermal Imaging Camera (TIC) data, photos, or metadata associated with this call. Specifically, I request any thermal images taken of the camper trailer on the property. [3] Radio Dispatch Logs and Audio Recordings of all communications between Dispatch and the Incident Commander (Command) for the duration of the call. [4] All handwritten notes, field notes, or logs created by the Incident Commander or any other officer on scene regarding the decision to enter the locked camper trailer. The Department responded on February 4, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Cimino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0437, was opened as a result. Subsequently the Department provided a further response on February 18, 2026, which Mr. Cimino 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 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

Chief John W. Glynn SPR26/0437 Page 2 February 24, 2026 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Mr. Cimino’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the records. Current Appeal In his February 9, 2026 appeal, Mr. Cimino asserts, “[t]he Town has failed to meet its burden to prove that a specific statutory exemption applies to these records. They are inventing an exemption for ‘discovery’ that does not exist in the statute.” In his February 17, 2026 appeal, Mr. Cimino states, “I demand the immediate release of the unredacted NFIRS report. The ‘litigation shield’ argument has been rejected by the Courts and the Supervisor of Records repeatedly.” The Department’s February 17th and February 18th Responses In its February 17, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law and attorney-client privilege to withhold the requested records. The Department also asserted that there is a pending matter, which is the subject of an ongoing litigation. In its February 18, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[a]ll records responsive to this request will be provided to your attorney in response to discovery in pending litigation and as such the Town will not be providing duplicates here. To the extent you do not have access to those documents, please let us know and the Town will provide a response appropriate to this request within ten business days.”

Chief John W. Glynn SPR26/0437 Page 3 February 24, 2026 The Department further stated the following in its February 17th response: As you are aware, the requested records are the subject of ongoing litigation in the case: Town of Abington et. al. v. Pro Realty, LLC, Plymouth Superior Court No. 2583-CV-00870. As such, your records requests, above, are directly related to that pending litigation and the Town’s litigation position in such civil matter. Given the nature of your requests, and the clear relation between those requests and the above-referenced pending litigation, it is the Town’s position that your request for records is more properly made in the context of the pending litigation. The Public Records Law is not a vehicle to circumvent the normal discovery processes, where those apply, such as in this case. Instead, your rights and ability to obtain discovery of documentation from the Town, if any, is governed by the Court’s rules governing same. Accordingly, the Town is withholding the requested record.… Further, the [public body] prosecutes a strategy for the litigation, and its ‘policy positions’ are frequently subject to change and refinement throughout the litigation.” Id., 2004 WL 792712 at *3. Again, as the records requested are directly related to your pending litigation against the Town they fall within the purview of Exemption (d) and will be withheld accordingly at this time.” Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending litigation, Town of Abington et. al. v. Pro Realty, LLC, Plymouth Superior Court, Docket No. No. 2583-CV-00870, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Victor Cimino