Balestracci, Lukas v. Department of Correction (SPR 20260689)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 9, 2026 SPR26/0689 Kate Silvia Director of Communications Department of Correction 50 Maple Street, Suite 3 Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Silvia: I have received the petition of Lukas Balestracci, of Committee for Public Counsel Services, appealing the responses of the Department of Corrections (Department) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Mr. Balestracci submitted the first request on December 1, 2025, and the second request on December 11, 2025. December 1st Request [1] All grievances, letters to the commissioner, superintendents or deputy superintendents, staff access forms, and informal complaints regarding lack of access to legal storage dated between September 1, 2025 and December 1, 2025. [2] All grievances, letters to the commissioner, superintendents or deputy superintendents, staff access forms, and informal complaints regarding the contrabanding of legal reference books in personal property dated between September 1, 2025 and December 1, 2025. December 11th Request [1] All policies and procedures governing the storage of excess legal documents and their accessibility by inmates issued in compliance with 103 C.M.R. § 403.10 (2) (c) at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center and M.C.I. Shirley. [2] All records stored within the Inmate Management System (IMS) of inmate property disposals, including items that have been “contrabanded”, within the past sixty days at M.C.I. Shirley and M.C.I. Norfolk. 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

Kate Silvia SPR26/0689 Page 2 March 9, 2026 [3] The two most recent grievance audits prepared in compliance with 103 C.M.R. § 491.22 (2) (a) and 103 C.M.R. § 491.22 (2) (a) at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, M.C.I. Shirley, and M.C.I. Norfolk. [4] Any policies, procedures, directives, memoranda, or correspondence created to take corrective actions because of findings in the audits described in Request No. 3. The Department responded to the December 1st request on December 2, 2025, and assigned it reference number R001528-120125. The Department responded to the December 11th request on December 22, 2025, and assigned it reference number R001589-121625. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Balestracci petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0689, 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. Att’y 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. The Department’s December 2nd and December 22nd Responses On December 2, 2025, the Department responded to Mr. Balestracci’s December 1st request as follows: [Item 1]: The enclosed responsive grievance records have been redacted to remove any criminal offender record information (CORI) of identifiable inmates under G. L. c. 6, § 167. . . . Access to CORI information is strictly controlled. Please note that there are no responsive records for all other portions of this request as records are not tracked in the manner requested.

Kate Silvia SPR26/0689 Page 3 March 9, 2026 [Item 2]: Please be advised that there are no responsive records as records are not tracked in the manner requested. On December 22, 2025, the Department responded to Mr. Balestracci’s December 11th request as follows: [Item 1]: The records responsive to your request are 103 CMR 403, Inmate Property: 103 CMR 403, Inmate Property, Standard Operating Procedure to 103 CMR 403: 103 CMR 403 SOP and facility procedures to the aforementioned (enclosed). [Item 2]: Please be advised that there are no records responsive to your request. Data is not maintained nor can it be queried in the manner requested. This information is maintained within the incarcerated individual’s property screen, not as bulk data. [Item 3]: Enclosed please find the record responsive to your request. [Item 4]: There are no records responsive to your request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Balestracci contends: . . . On December 10, 2025, I sent a letter to DOC objecting to their failure to locate and produce the requested records and reminding them of their regulatory obligation to maintain records made or received by them to be accessible and searchable in compliance with 950 C.M.R. § 32.07. Further, I recommended a possible categorization, specifically, “property” to narrow the scope of the search within their Inmate Management System. See Ex. C – Objection Letter[.] DOC did not respond to this letter or provide any information regarding the way the information requested was in fact stored. Given the deficiencies in DOC’s response to this request, I sent a second public records request . . . . . . It cannot be that “there are no records responsive to [this] request” if, as DOC admits, the requested information is “maintained within the incarcerated individual’s property screen.” Further, if DOC does not have or is not able to provide these records of inmate property disposals or of any associated grievances, it would be in clear violation of 103 C.M.R. 403.15, which requires DOC to maintain the following information that is directly relevant to this request . . . . Further, the IMS’s technical requirements under DOC’s own procurement

Kate Silvia SPR26/0689 Page 4 March 9, 2026 standards require that records responsive to both requests be accessible as reports natively within the software. . . . Upon information and belief, the IMS that DOC used at all times relevant to this request was “Mi-Case.” See Ex. G – DOC Bidder Award Notice. At no point during the course of these requests did DOC ever elucidate the true manner in which the information sought was stored, the capabilities of the IMS in data retrieval, the fact that any of the above data points are stored in the manner listed, or even the name of the IMS that was in use. DOC’s refusal to provide any information in this regard essentially makes it impossible to narrow our request if indeed it is true that they are unable to bulk download the information requested. Further, if the IMS is in fact compliant with the procurement standards that they themselves promulgated, then property entries must be stored or accessible as bulk data to meet requirement M13-057, and property related grievances must be able to be queried in bulk to meet requirements M19-003, M19-004, and M19- 016. . . . As such, I respectfully ask the Supervisor of Records to order DOC to provide the documents requested or, in the alternative, provide a cost estimate for obtaining the documents and possible ways to narrow the scope of the request. After reviewing Mr. Balestracci’s appeal, he does not appear to be appealing the redaction of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) from the records responsive to Item 1 of his December 1st request. Additional Records Based on the Department’s response and in conjunction with the information provided in Mr. Balestracci’s appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Department possesses records responsive to Items 1 and 2 of Mr. Balestracci’s December 1st request, and Item 2 of Mr. Balestracci’s December 11th request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Department must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Balestracci 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. Balestracci may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Kate Silvia SPR26/0689 Page 5 March 9, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lukas Balestracci