Sharkey, Kyle v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20261328)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 21, 2026 SPR26/1328 Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. Assistant District Attorney 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 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 January 2, 2026, Mr. Sharkey requested the following: [Records] found in Commonwealths Notice of Discovery XLIX[:] [1] E-Mail (2 pages), dated July 22, 2024, bate stamp NDA0-678-679[;] [2] E-Mail (3 pages), dated October 31, 2024, bate stamp NDA0-680-682[;] [3] E-Mall (1 page), dated, November 2, 2024, bate stamp NDA0-683[;] [4] E-Mail (1 page, dated November 3, 2024, bate stamp NDAO-684[;] [5] E-Mail (1 page, dated, November 11, 2024, bate stamp NDAO-685[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of previous appeal. See SPR26/1046 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 1, 2026). In my April 1st determination, I ordered the Office to provide Mr. Sharkey with a response to his request. The Office responded on April 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Sharkey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1328, 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 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. SPR26/1328 Page 2 April 21, 2026 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 Office’s April 10th Response In its April 10, 2026 response, the Office stated: 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. The NDAO reserves all rights to assert applicable exemptions pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26) and G.L. c. 66, § 10B… [F]or records that are contained outside of the prosecution’s case file, such as requests for email correspondence, where locating, compiling, and reviewing potentially responsive records is expected to require an added substantial amount of time, the NDAO will charge a fee in accordance with the Public Records Law. The NDAO will assess a charge of $25 per hour for time spent on such tasks…

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/1328 Page 3 April 21, 2026 You will be notified within ten business days of your request of any anticipated fee prior to the commencement of such review… Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Sharkey argued: The NDAO has had in its custody and control all documents pertaining to the case file prior to June 18, 2025. June 18, 2026 is approaching soon and the “rolling basis” is getting excessive… Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, specifically G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) and 950 CMR 32.07(l), a Records Access Officer (RAO) may not charge a fee if they do not provide an initial response to a request within 10 business days… The amount of time spent alone in the latest “batch” of responses could have been put to much use producing requested documents without further delays. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Sharkey’s request was submitted on January 2, 2026, and the Office has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Office has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Office must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Office must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/1328 Page 4 April 21, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Sharkey 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. Mr. Sharkey 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: Kyle Sharkey