Gainey, Stacia v. Holbrook, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261140)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 8, 2026 SPR26/1140 Debbie Hoyt Administrative Assistant Holbrook Police Department 300 South Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Hoyt: I have received the petition of Stacia Gainey, Esq. appealing the response of the Holbrook Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 3, 2026, Attorney Gainey requested: [1] …a copy of the personnel file, its entirety, and all documents related to [an identified officer]. Specifically this request is to include, but should not be limited to the following: [2] Employment application, resume, and cover letter. [3] Interview notes, evaluations, and scores. [4] Background investigation reports. [5] Reference checks. [6] Original Performance Evaluations, appraisals and probationary records. [7] Letters of Reprimand, POST Commission Listings (and supports), Citizen Complaints, Criminal Complaints, Civil Complaints, Letters of Correction and Documentation of any and all Disciplinary actions. The Department responded on March 17, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Gainey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1140, 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

Debbie Hoyt SPR26/1140 Page 2 April 8, 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. The Department’s March 17th Response In its March 17, 2026 response, the Department provided responsive records to Item 7 of the request and responded further to each item of the request as follows: [1] The Town will not produce the entire personnel file pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) (“Exemption (c)”). [2] The Town will not produce the employment application pursuant to Exemption (c). The Town is not in possession of any documents responsive to other parts of this request. [3] The Town is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request. [4] The Town will not produce any background investigation reports pursuant to Exemption (c). [5] The Town is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request. [6] The Town will not produce any performance evaluations, appraisals, or probationary records pursuant to Exemption (c). [7] The Town will not produce any disciplinary records or letters of reprimand of pursuant to Exemption (c). With respect to citizen complaints, attached please find documents responsive to this request. The Town is not in possession of any civil complaints or criminal complaints responsive to this request. For criminal and civil complaints, please search the state court dockets… The Town will not produce any letters of correction pursuant to Exemption (c). The Town will not produce documentation of all disciplinary actions pursuant to Exemption (c). The

Debbie Hoyt SPR26/1140 Page 3 April 8, 2026 Town is not in possession of any documents responsive to your request for “POST Commission Listings (and supports).” The Town advises you to contact the POST Commission regarding this request. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Gainey argued, “Exemption (c) is narrow and does not shield police disciplinary records.” It appears Attorney Gainey’s appeal pertains solely to the Department’s withholding of records under Exemption (c). 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). First Clause – Personnel Information While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. Further, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that Exemption (c) “clearly and unambiguously states that the privacy exemption does not apply to an ‘investigation’ of law

Debbie Hoyt SPR26/1140 Page 4 April 8, 2026 enforcement misconduct.” Eric Mack v. Dist. Att’y for the Bristol Dist., 494 Mass. 1, 12 (2024). Additionally, the Court held that the phrase “related to,” as used in Exemption (c), “is construed broadly.” Id. at 12 n.9. Specifically, the Court held that the exemption did not apply to records related to an investigation into whether two police officers had committed any crimes or violated their department’s use of force policy. Id. at 12. Exemption (c) did not apply even where the investigation concluded there was no basis to charge the officers with crimes. Id. at 6. 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. Although the Department indicates that the withheld records fall under Exemption (c), the Department has not demonstrated how the identified records fall within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain how the Department may withhold the remaining responsive records in their entirety under the privacy clause of Exemption (c). The Department has not sufficiently demonstrated how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal that would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must also provide information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the

Debbie Hoyt SPR26/1140 Page 5 April 8, 2026 seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. It should also be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Gainey 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 Gainey may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stacia Gainey, Esq. Joseph W. Proctor, Esq.