Hausman, Esq., Samuel v. Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (SPR 20260936)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2026 SPR26/0936 Kylie Araujo Executive Assistant Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority 10 Oak Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Ms. Araujo: I have received the petition of Samuel M. Hausman, Esq., of Hausman Law Offices, appealing the response of the Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 5, 2026, Attorney Hausman requested the following records pertaining to an identified incident: [1] All incident reports, including all that fully identify: a. the operator of the GATRA vehicle at the time of the incident, b. her employer at the time of the incident if not GATRA, c. make, model, registration number and owner of the vehicle at the time of this incident. d. all witnesses to the incident. [2] All video, audio, and audiovisual recordings concerning this incident. [3] All 911/dispatch calls concerning this incident. [4] All associated police reports concerning this incident. [5] Any and all third parties that GATRA contracted with to train the operator of this vehicle on behalf of GATRA at the time of the incident, and to operate and maintain the vehicle involved in the incident. [6] If the vehicle operated on behalf of GATRA was owned or operated by a person or entity not directly employed by GATRA, then please provide contact and insurance information, including certificates of insurance, from that entity. 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

Kylie Araujo SPR26/0936 Page 2 March 24, 2026 [7] If the operator of the vehicle on behalf of GATRA was directly employed by an entity of other than GATRA, then please provide contact and insurance information, including certificates of insurance, from that entity. The Authority responded on March 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Attorney Hausman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0936, 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 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 Authority’s March 6th Response In its March 6, 2026 response, the Authority cited Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Hausman argued that the Authority’s claim to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (d) is insufficient, and stated, “[t]hese are factual records, not deliberative documents.” Exemption (d) Exemption (d) allows the withholding of: inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this subclause shall not apply to reasonably

Kylie Araujo SPR26/0936 Page 3 March 24, 2026 completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). Exemption (d) is intended to avoid premature release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if disclosed. Its application is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. See Babets v. Sec’y of the Exec. Office of Human Servs., 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). Factual reports which are reasonably complete and inferences which can be drawn from factual investigations, even if labeled as opinions or conclusions, are not exempt as deliberative or policy making materials. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see also Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89 (1973) (purely factual matters used in the development of government policy are subject to disclosure). Under Exemption (d), the Authority argued: Here, the requested records pertain to a matter that remains under review and deliberation, as GATRA evaluates the need for policy adjustments or other action as a result of the incident. Moreover, insofar as the incident may give rise to legal liability on GATRA’s part, Exemption d would apply to records that inform any legal and policy decisions GATRA may make in connection with such a legal claim… Although the Authority states that the responsive records pertain to a deliberative process that “remains under review,” the Authority must demonstratate how disclosure of the records would taint any ongoing deliberative process as required by Exemption (d). See Babets, 403 Mass. at 237 n.8 (“this exemption protects such documents from disclosure only while policy is ‘being developed,’ that is, while the deliberative process is ongoing and incomplete”). The Authority is also advised that any information contained in the responsive records that is factual in nature may be subject to disclosure, as Exemption (d) does not apply to such information. Consequently, the Authority must clarify whether the records contain any factual information that can be segregated. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-290 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Further, I find the Authority has not established how all of the requested records constitute “inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters” as required by Exemption (d). See DOI v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 4 (2011) (indicating that a requirement for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption 5 to apply is “its source must be a Government agency”); City Of Madison v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 641 F.2d 1036, 1040 (1st Cir. 1981) (finding that documents from a private party are not “intra-agency” under FOIA exemption 5); SPR95/336 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 14, 1995; August 31, 1995) (finding that Exemption (d) does not protect materials submitted to an agency by third

Kylie Araujo SPR26/0936 Page 4 March 24, 2026 parties and only applies to governmental agencies or consultants). The Authority must clarify these matters. It is additionally uncertain what records the Authority possesses that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the Authority must identify the records in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (d). Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide Attorney Hausman 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. Attorney Hausman may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Samuel M. Hausman, Esq.