Gordon, Amanda v. Attorney General's Office (SPR 20260766)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 18, 2026 SPR26/0766 Hanne Rush, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Rush: I have received the petition of Amanda Gordon appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 17, 2026, Ms. Gordon requested, … to follow up on Matter Number 25-10-151019, I understand that a Private Right of Action letter was issued on or about December 15, 2025. Could you please confirm the current status and disposition of this matter, including whether the investigation has been formally closed. I would appreciate receiving any determination, closure letter, or disposition notice issued in connection with the matter. I also would appreciate receiving copies of the following: [1] The complaint filed with your office by the complainant; [2] The Private Right of Action letter issued in connection with the matter; [3] Any correspondence between your office and the complainant or her counsel; and [4] Any correspondence, notes, or records relating to your office’s communications with me, including our December 9, 2025 call. The AGO responded on March 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Gordon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0766, 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 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

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/0766 Page 2 March 18, 2026 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 March 4, 2026 appeal, Ms. Gordon stated, The cl. 26(c) privacy exemption is designed to protect the personal privacy of third parties named in government records — not to shield the government’s own communications with a party to the matter … The cl. 26(f) chilling-effect exemption is similarly inapplicable. That exemption exists to protect the identity and candid disclosures of complainants speaking to law enforcement. Furthermore, the complainant’s identity is not, in fact, confidential. The Complainant has publicly identified herself as such in filings in two separate judicial proceedings — a summary process action in Falmouth District Court (Docket No. 2689SU000004) and a civil action in Barnstable Superior Court (Docket No. 2672CV00036) —referencing both her complaint to the AGO and he Private Right of Action letter issued in connection with that complaint. Information already disclosed by the complainant in public court filings cannot reasonably be treated as confidential for purposes of the public records exemptions. As there are pending litigation deadlines in early March, I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. The AGO’s March 3rd Response In its March 3, 2026 response, the AGO cites Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety.

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/0766 Page 3 March 18, 2026 Pending 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. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Barnstable Superior Court. See Carroll, Kathleen v. Gordon, Amanda, et. al., Docket Number 2672CV00036. In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kathleen Gordon