Stout, Matthew v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20260562)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 4, 2026 SPR26/0562 William J. Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: I have received the petition of Matt Stout, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 28, 2026, Mr. Stout requested “… I saw that paperwork had been filed with the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds confirming that MassDOT completed four takings in Bourne for the Sagamore Bridge project, for [4 identified properties]. Each of the taking filings note that the homeowners received an award. Can you provide numbers on what the state awarded each one for the taking?” MassDOT responded on January 28, 2026, January 29, 2026, and February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Stout petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0562, 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 establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian 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

William Doyle. Esq. SPR26/0562 Page 2 March 4, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal Mr. Stout asserts, “I am appealing this denial on the ground that the request I am making -- the amounts of the awards the state made to each property owner -- are not exempt under the exemption the state cites, which includes appraisals or work product of appraisers. Those are separate documents, which I am not seeking.” MassDOT’s January 28th, January 29th and February 2nd Responses In its January 28, 2026 response, MassDOT cited Exemption (i) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. In its January 29, 2026 response, MassDOT stated, “[t]he total relocation benefit amounts have not been finalized and continue to be negotiated. Therefore, disclosure at this time could interfere with ongoing deliberations and/or discussions which may negatively impact MassDOT’s ability to meet its obligations under the taking process.” In its February 2, 2026 response, MassDOT provided more clarity with regard to withholding the requested records under Exemption (i) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (i) Exemption (i) applies to: appraisals of real property acquired or to be acquired until (1) a final agreement is entered into; or (2) any litigation relative to such appraisal has been terminated; or (3) the time within which to commence such litigation has expired. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(i). In its February 2, 2026 response, MassDOT stated as follows: MassDOT has not entered into settlements with the five property owners, who have three years to file a claim in court and/or request an administrative review of the amount offered to them. Settlements can include relocation benefits, which have not been finalized. Disclosure of this information at this time could interfere with ongoing deliberations and/or discussions with property owners

William Doyle. Esq. SPR26/0562 Page 3 March 4, 2026 and may negatively impact MassDOT’s ability to meet its obligations under the taking process for these properties.… To the extent your requests to MassDOT have included a request for appraisal information, that information is exempt from disclosure at this time. Individual property owners, should they so choose, may disclose any information they wish publicly. Although MassDOT states that it “has not entered into settlements with the five property owners,” it is unclear if amounts have been awarded to the property owners. It is additionally uncertain how Exemption (i) applies to withhold such information from disclosure. MassDOT must clarify these matters. Further, I find that MassDOT must identify the records it possesses that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of the records it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, MassDOT withheld responsive records without identifying the records. Therefore, MassDOT must identify the record(s) that it withheld under Exemption (i). Conclusion Accordingly, MassDOT is ordered to provide Mr. Stout 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. Stout may appeal the substantive nature of MassDOT’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Matt Stout