Nee, Karli v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20261125)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 8, 2026 SPR26/1125 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 Karli Nee 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 February 26, 2026, Ms. Nee requested: [1] [Mandatory custodians and private domain list]: This request requires a diligent search of all records, including those stored on personal devices or private accounts used for official business. Please search the following accounts and domains: [a list of identified individuals and specified email addresses]. [2] [Extensive search term variations]: To account for mislogging and “clerical errors,” you are directed to use the following wildcard and variation strings in your search: [a list of specified search terms describing the victim, incident, case numbers, and keywords]. [3] [Requirement for proof of search (search log & affidavit)]: I am requesting a Certified Search Log as proof of a diligent search. . . . The Office responded on March 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Nee petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1125 was opened as a result. Status of Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the 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. SPR26/1125 Page 2 April 8, 2026 circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Nee’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Nee contends: Importantly, while I received only these 4 pages, a third party who is a complete stranger to me and has no involvement with or relevance to the Estate of [an identified individual] was provided with the full 25-page version of the identical email chain. This disparate treatment indicates that the NDAO knowingly and intentionally withheld pages from the Estate representative while releasing the complete chain to an unrelated individual. Further, the 25-page version provided to the third party contains clear evidence of document manipulation and discrepancies . . . . I request you order the NDAO and Millis PD to: 1. Immediately search all accounts (including [specified email addresses]) and produce the complete, unredacted, unaltered 25-page chain to me. 2. Provide a detailed exemption log for any remaining redactions and explain all discrepancies/manipulations.

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/1125 Page 3 April 8, 2026 3. Update policies to prohibit the use of personal email for public/municipal business and to prevent alteration of responsive records. 4. Produce the full records to me within the statutory timeframe. The Office’s March 12th Response On March 12, 2026, the Office stated, “[r]esponsive to your request, please find attached 4 pages of records.” Additional Records Based on the Office’s response and in conjunction with the information provided in Ms. Nee’s appeal, it is unclear if the Office possesses additional records responsive to the 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 Office must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Nee 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. Ms. Nee may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Karli Nee