Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of - Fire Department (SPR 20260588)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 6, 2026 SPR26/0588 Captain Corey S. Rutledge Saugus Fire Department 298 Central Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Captain Rutledge: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Saugus 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 December 30, 2025, Ms. Valentino requested, “... firearm logs for Dec. 16, 2025.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0241 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 6, 2026). In my February 6th determination, I found that the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records, and advised the Department to cite an exemption under the Public Records Law to redact information from the responsive records. The Department responded on February 19, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0588, was opened as a result. Subsequently, Ms. Valentino provided additional information on March 3, 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. 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

Captain Corey S. Rutledge SPR26/0588 Page 2 March 6, 2026 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, Ms. Valentino asserts, “I believe that it’s over redacted and that the law does not support some of the redactions made.” Ms. Valentino also stated, [1] The Fire Dept redacted the name of the officer in charge, the names of the crew members, the name of the officer in charge, the name of the individual who completed the report, the name was the person that updated the report, and the signature block [sic]. [2] The fire department redacted the incident type and redacted the name of the department that was going to be investigating the incident. [3] The narrative section that’s redacted, needs to be addressed. The Fire Dept stated that they were redacting that section because it was medical in nature. The Department’s February 19th Response In its February 19, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[u]pon receipt of the appeal for these records, I have no reason to redact the names of responders to this incident. I will correct that mistake with a newly furnished report.” Additionally, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of the redactions. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) 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 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Medical Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass.

Captain Corey S. Rutledge SPR26/0588 Page 3 March 6, 2026 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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. 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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. In its response, the Department states, “[r]egarding the second and third points of appeal, per MGL Chapter 4, Section 7 (26)(c), I determined the incident type and nature of services rendered on scene were private information for the parties involved. The requestor of the information, Ms. Gianna Valentino, did not establish her rights to the information. I could not determine if she was a medical proxy, had power of attorney, or held other rights to the information requested. For these reasons, I redacted the original incident report. I apologize if this was done in error and will correct the issue if need be.” In camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the City’s claims to redact a portion of the records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, the City must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4).

Captain Corey S. Rutledge SPR26/0588 Page 4 March 6, 2026 The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino