La Guerre, Nicole v. Gardner, City of- Police Department (SPR 20260493)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 24, 2026 SPR26/0493 Nicholas P. Maroni Deputy Chief of Police Gardner Police Department 200 Main Street Gardner, MA 01440 Dear Deputy Chief Maroni: I have received the petition of Nicole La Guerre appealing the response of the Gardner 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 December 8, 2025, Ms. La Guerre requested an identified police report. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0105 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 27, 2026). In my January 27th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to withhold the responsive police report in its entirety under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on February 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. La Guerre petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0493, 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 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

Nicholas P. Maroni SPR26/0493 Page 2 February 24, 2026 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 Department’s February 10th Response In its February 10, 2026 response, the Department reasserted its Exemption (f) claims to withhold the responsive police report, and further noted, “[t]here is pending litigation involving the subject of the requested report… The denial under Exemption (f) is to maintain the integrity of the case and ensure due process.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. La Guerre took issue with the Department’s “reassertion of a blanket denial,” and “failure to apply exemptions with specificity.” In a further email to this office on February 24, 2026, Ms. La Guerre reiterated her opposition to the Department’s claims under Exemption (f) and argued that the Department’s response remains noncompliant with the determination in SPR26/0105. Pending 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. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested record is related to active and ongoing litigation in Gardner District Court. See Commonwealth v. Leonard Mercury, (Gardner District Court Docket Nos. 2563CR000769 and 2563CR000773) (October 31, 2025). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested record. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Nicholas P. Maroni SPR26/0493 Page 3 February 24, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicole La Guerre