Cohen, Nancy v. Attorney General's Office (SPR 20261220)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 16, 2026 SPR26/1220 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 Nancy Cohen 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 March 11, 2026, Ms. Cohen requested a “... any report conducted under [an identified] Attorney General and /or [an identified] predecessor, that describes the findings of an investigation into child sexual abuse at the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield and/or Worcester.” The AGO provided Ms. Cohen with a response on March 25, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Cohen petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1220, 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. 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. SPR26/1220 Page 2 April 16, 2026 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 AGO’s March 25th Response In its March 25, 2026 response, the AGO cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Cohen asserts, “… on October 15, 2024, AG Campbell said on GBH Radio’s Boston Public Radio show, ‘I inherited a report that was completed...’ If the report is completed it cannot be withheld under exemption (f).” Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective Law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/1220 Page 3 April 16, 2026 witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its March 25th response, the AGO asserts: … we are withholding in their entirety records that may be responsive to your request in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f), as they constitute investigatory materials related to an open investigation that reveal confidential sources of information that are necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement officials, the disclosure of which would so compromise effective law enforcement by prematurely releasing information about the nature of our investigation and/or cause a chilling effect on individuals to speak freely with law enforcement, that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. Based on the AGO’s response, I find that to the extent that the AGO claims that disclosure would “…reveal confidential sources of information…” regarding the ongoing investigation and that “… would so compromise effective law enforcement by prematurely releasing information about the nature of our investigation and/or cause a chilling effect on

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/1220 Page 4 April 16, 2026 individuals to speak freely with law enforcement officials[,]” the AGO may permissibly withhold the requested records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. 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: Nancy Cohen