Montgomery, Tara v. Malden, City of (SPR 20260593)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 6, 2026 SPR26/0593 Joanne Perperian Records Access Officer City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: I have received the petition of Tara M. Montgomery appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 3, 2025, Ms. Montgomery requested, “[a]ny and all records for [an identified address], for both units 1 & 2.” On September 4, 2026, Ms. Montgomery modified her request to include, “a gun permit on the property[.]” The City responded on September 4, 2025 and February 17, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Montgomery petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0593, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City responded on February 25, 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 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0593 Page 2 March 6, 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. 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Montgomery’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Montgomery contends: The police incident report #25037182 contains information about myself, the property in which I reside and own. The information in this incident report is being requested to submit to an arbitration panel at American Arbitration Association for Case 01-25-0003-9661 as evidence pertinent to my defense. The information in this incident report will only be used for that purpose. The City’s Responses On September 4, 2025, the City provided a redacted record and stated that it withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (j) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c); G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(j). On February 25, 2026, the City further clarified how the responsive records could be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c) and Exemption (j) of the Public Records Law. 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0593 Page 3 March 6, 2026 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Medical and Personnel Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). 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). While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Association v. School Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. 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. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0593 Page 4 March 6, 2026 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). This clause requires 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 September 4th response, the City states, “[a] review of this report (CAD#25037182) revealed that it contains personal identifying information (G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)), and thereof is exempt from disclosure under the public records law and those records will be withheld.” On February 25, 2026, the City further stated, “…the redacted information consisted of involved parties’ date of birth and personal telephone numbers. This is why the deducted information appears directly after the introduction of the named involved parties.” Based on the City’s response, and to the extent the records contain a personal cell phone number, the City may permissibly redact such portions from disclosure. Therefore, I find that the City has met its burden to redact the personal cell phone number under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. However, based on the City’s response, it is not clear how an individual’s date of birth constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also unclear if such information is available from other sources. The City must clarify these matters. Exemption (j) Exemption (j) of the Public Records Law permits a records custodian to withhold or redact portions of records containing: the names and addresses of any persons contained in, or referred to in, any applications for any licenses to carry or possess firearms issued pursuant to chapter one hundred and forty or any firearms identification cards issued pursuant to said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on sales or transfers of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, or machine guns or ammunition

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0593 Page 5 March 6, 2026 therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on said licenses or cards G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(j). The scope of the exemption is limited to restricting the public disclosure of the name and address of the individual. A records custodian may withhold an entire firearms record if the requestor knows with certainty that this particular record pertains to a specific address or individual. In such an instance, redaction would be futile as it would not protect the identity of the license holder(s). See Id.; see also G. L. c. 140, §§ 121-131P. On February 25th, the City clarified, “[a]s you will note in the supplied CAD report, there is a line that reads ‘There is 1 AG DOC gun permit at [an identified address]’. This is generic notation that automatically populates for reasons of Officer safety whenever someone at the residence, has or had a License to Carry (LTC) and / or a lawfully register firearm. The appeals notes that on the same date (September 4th, 2025), Ms. Montgomery inquired regarding the presence of a firearm at [an identified address].” It is unclear from the City’s response which specific records the City intends to withhold. The City must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (j). 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”). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Montgomery 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. Ms. Montgomery may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tara M. Montgomery