Sharkey, Kyle v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20261315)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 23, 2026 SPR26/1315 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 Kyle Sharkey 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 December 31, 2025, Mr. Sharkey requested a “copy of video sent from [an identified individual] to Canton Police Detective [an identified individual][.]” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0913 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 17, 2026). In my March 17th determination, I ordered the Office to respond to Mr. Sharkey’s request. The Office responded on April 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Sharkey petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1315, 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 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. SPR26/1315 Page 2 April 23, 2026 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 Office’s April 10th Response In its April 10, 2026 response, the Office stated the following: In the past year, the NDAO has received in excess of 160 public records requests concerning the prosecution of Commonwealth v. Karen Read, 2282CR00117. More than fifty of those requests were submitted by you alone. The NDAO acknowledges the significant public interest in this matter and is actively reviewing the prosecution case file for public production. The prosecution case file in this matter, comprising tens of thousands of records, is undergoing comprehensive review and production on a rolling basis consistent with the Commonwealth’s Notices of Discovery (“NODs”). As of the date of this letter, the NDAO has produced all financial records, trial transcripts in its possession, and non-exempt documents referenced in Notice of Discovery I, comprising 1,940 files and approximately 44 gigabytes of data. Subsequent productions, organized by NOD, will continue on a rolling basis within a reasonable time, taking into account the NDAO’s other obligations. A supplemental response will issue upon completion of each additional production. You will be included on all productions of the prosecution file within a reasonable time given the volume of the case file and the other obligations of this Office. Each of your requests for items within the prosecution file will be addressed therein. . . . Current Appeal In his appeal petition, and in a subsequent email to this office on April 14, 2026, Mr. Sharkey argues the following: The NDAO has had in its custody and control all documents pertaining to the case file prior to June 18, 2025. . . . It is clearly not my problem that NDAO is under scrutiny which includes lawsuits and public requests are being filed, barely any of my requests have actually been produced and or the burden of the expenses far exceeds the value or [sic] withheld due to open investigations, Federally Sealed Documents, Law enforcement agencies under investigation and open court cases.

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/1315 Page 3 April 23, 2026 After approximately 1 year of all documents being in the custody and control of the NDAO they have only produced NOD 1 of approximately NOD 64. At this current rate the “rolling basis” is becoming a well known tactic. . . . 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. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that civil litigation, relating to the records at issue in Mr. Sharkey’s request, is active and ongoing in the Plymouth Superior Court. See Paul O’Keefe Individually and Personal Rep. of the Estate of John Joseph O’Keefe III, et al. vs. C&C Hospitality, LLC d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s et al., (Plymouth Superior Court, Docket No. 2483-CV-00692) (April 16, 2026). In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kyle Sharkey