Sharkey, Kyle v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20260714)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 9, 2026 SPR26/0714 Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. Records Access Officer Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office 45 Shawmut Road Canton, MA 02021 Dear Attorney Hunt: I have received the petition of Kyle Sharkey appealing the response of the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 31, 2025, Mr. Sharkey requested: . . . copies of records pertaining to: Commonwealth v. Karen Read[,] Docket # 2282CR00117[.] I request the following specific record(s): Copy of Canton Police Department, All Events Log (167 pages)[.] Also known as Key Card Swipe Log[.] Found in Commonwealth’s Notice of Discovery XXXV[.] The Office responded on January 15, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Sharkey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0714, 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 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

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/0714 Page 2 March 9, 2026 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Sharkey contends, “. . . Jan[uary] 15 was the first response to my requests, it was impermissibly vague, clearly did not address a timeline nor if any or all of my requests will be included in the ‘rolling basis’ production of the case ‘Casefile.’” The Office’s January 15th Response In its January 15, 2026 response, the Office stated: Your request seeks materials in connection with the matter Commonwealth v. Karen Read, Docket No. 2282CR00117. The NDAO recognizes the high public interest in this matter and is working to make those records available for inspection at reasonable times and without unreasonable delay. G.L. c. 66, § 10(a). Due to the substantial volume of responsive records, comprising tens of thousands of records in both paper and digital formats, and the time required to identify, review, and, where necessary, redact exempt information pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26), records will be produced on a rolling basis until the whole casefile is publicly available. The first few installments, which included contracts and invoices related to the matter, was released in September. An additional group of court transcripts was released in December. Further groups of responsive records will be produced in subsequent installments. I anticipate a substantial production within the next month and will include you on that distribution. Going forward, you will be included on all future productions related to this case file until production of the casefile is complete. . . . Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/0714 Page 3 March 9, 2026 This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Sharkey’s appeal, is active and ongoing in Plymouth County Superior Court. See Paul O’Keefe Individually and Personal Rep of the Estate of John Joseph O’Keefe III et al v. C&C Hospitality, LLC d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s et al, (Plymouth County Docket No. 2483CV00692) (August 26, 2024). In light of the active litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kyle Sharkey