Open Commonwealth, v. Malden, City of (SPR 20260886)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 26, 2026 SPR26/0886 Joanne Perperian Records Access Officer City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: I have received the petition of Open Commonwealth (requestor) 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 February 26, 2026, the requestor sought: . . . [F]or the dates December 1, 2025, through February 26, 2026: [1] Any emails received from [an identified individual] including but not limited to the [specified email address]. [2] Any emails sent to [an identified individual] including but not limited to the [specified email address]. This request seeks electronic mail which includes any email account(s) under your control and for any fully qualified domain names under your control. This request includes all electronic mail attachments and metadata. This request includes but is not limited to electronic and/or physical documents. This request seeks responsive documents be delivered in electronic format and in the format in which they are regularly maintained and specifically includes all electronic metadata. The City responded on March 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0886, was opened as a result. 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 SPR26/0886 Page 2 March 26, 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 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 the requestor’s appeal petition, the requestor contends: 1. The RAO did not search all email in the municipal email system. Instead, he . . . asked individuals to search their own inboxes and sent items and provide him with responsive documents. Multiple Responsive records have been withheld in their entirety. 2. The responsive records that were provided are improperly redacted; Malden had no right or valid statutory exemption allowing for these redactions. 3. N[o] metadata was provided as specifically requested . . . the RAO provided no metadata. 4. The responsive records were not provided in the specific electronic format that they were requested . . . the RAO provided .pdf emails not .eml, .msg, or .pst files which he is able but chose not to do. The City’s March 12th Response In its March 12, 2026 response, the City provided responsive records in redacted form and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0886 Page 3 March 26, 2026 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: 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). 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 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 March 12, 2026 response, the City stated, “[p]lease note in accordance with Exemption (c), personal email addresses have been redacted.”

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0886 Page 4 March 26, 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. As of March 2, 2026, litigation relating to this issue is active and ongoing in Suffolk Superior Court. See Bruce Friedman v. Manza Arthur, Supervisor of Public Records, (Suffolk Superior Court Docket No. 2684CV00586). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to the redacted information. 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). Additional Records Based on the City’s response and in conjunction with the information provided in the requestor’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the City possesses additional emails from the “municipal email system” and “metadata.” 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 City must clarify whether additional records exist. Preferred Format of the Requestor A records access officer must, to the extent feasible, provide public records to a requestor in electronic format unless the record is not available in electronic form or the requestor does not have the ability to receive or access the records in electronic format and if feasible, in the requestor’s preferred format. In the absence of a preferred format, the records must be provided in a searchable machine-readable form. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5)(d). Additionally, the Public Records Access Regulations state that “the records access officer must provide electronic records in native form when possible.” 950 C.M.R. 32.07 (1)(d). In light of the requestor’s appeal, I find the City must clarify whether the responsive records can be provided in the format requested, specifically, “the format in which they are regularly maintained and . . . includ[ing] all electronic metadata” such as “.eml, .msg, or .pst files.”

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0886 Page 5 March 26, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide the requestor 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. The requestor may 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: Open Commonwealth