Mangini, Laura v. Springfield, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260585)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 5, 2026 SPR26/0585 Olivia Tanon Clerk’s Office Springfield Police Department 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Ms. Tanon: I have received the petition of Attorney Laura D. Mangini, of Alekman DiTusa, LLC, appealing the response of the Springfield 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 September 9, 2025, Attorney Mangini requested “any and all documentation related to the investigation of the sexual and physical assault of [a named individual], reference NO: 24-4362-OF.” The Department responded on September 9, 2025, and assigned reference number 25- 3140 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Mangini petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0585, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Mangini’s status and that of her client will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. It is unclear if Attorney Mangini may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Attorney Mangini a greater right of access to the responsive 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

Olivia Tanon SPR26/0585 Page 2 March 5, 2026 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 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 her appeal petition, Attorney Mangini states the following: On September 9, 2025, my office sent a request for records related to Incident Reference No. 24-4362-OF. ... Thereafter, we received notice that a different form was required, this one specific to sexual assaults. My office submitted this form, along with the request, and a copy of the Contingency Fee Agreement confirming that we represent [named individuals] on September 17. 2025. ... In response, to this submission, we were informed that we needed to submit the request, in person, with a valid ID and proof of representation, to the Springfield Police Department. ... On October 14, 2025, Attorney Joseph Ristau of [Alekman DiTusa, LLC] went, in person, to the Springfield Police Department as directed with a copy of the sexual assault form, authorization, and contingency fee agreement. He was informed that the records could not be released, and that he would have to leave a message with the Special Victims Unit. Attorney Ristau left a message with the SVU, but did not receive a call back. . . . To date, I have not received a written denial of my request for records. Under 950 CMR 32.06(3), the Springfield Police Department was required to provide written notice of any denial within ten (10) business days of receipt of the request. For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the Police Department is withholding

Olivia Tanon SPR26/0585 Page 3 March 5, 2026 records pursuant of G.L. c. 41, §97D. However, there is a specific exemption to that statute that allows for disclosure of records to the victim’s attorney. The Police Department may also rely on the Investigatory Exemption, however, the family has been informed that this case is closed, and that no charges will be brought forth. The Department’s September 9th Response In its September 9, 2025 response, the Department acknowledged receipt of the request. In emails to Attorney Mangini on December 1, December 9, and December 19, 2025, and again on February 16, 2026, an attorney for the City of Springfield indicates that he has communicated with the Department concerning this request. Burden of Specificity In this case, the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Department’s September 9th response, it is unclear which exemption the Department is citing in order to withhold the requested records. Additionally, it is unclear which specific records the Department intends to withhold. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold, and must explain with specificity how any exemption to the Public Records Law applies to withhold or redact the records. See 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 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; 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Mangini 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. Attorney Mangini may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Olivia Tanon SPR26/0585 Page 4 March 5, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura D. Mangini, Esq.