Jacobstein, Rebecca v. Worcester, City of - Office of the District Attorney (SPR 20261362)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 23, 2026 SPR26/1362 Mark Relation, Esq. Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 255 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Michaela Roberta Martin Strout. Esq., of Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), appealing the response of the Worcester 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 13, 2026, Rebecca Jacobstein, Esq., also of CPCS, requested “[a]ll correspondence, including emails, dated June 13, 2025, to present, between the WCDAO and the Worcester Police Department regarding the Department of Justice Report issued on December 9, 2024.” The Office responded on February 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Attorney Strout petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1362, 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR26/1362 Page 2 April 23, 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 Office’s February 12th Response In its February 12, 2026 response, the Office provided some responsive records, but stated: Please note, the District Attorney’s Office possesses additional records responsive to your request. However, these records relate to an open and pending criminal case, and so those records constitute discovery materials… Once the criminal case has been closed, this office will review any materials related to your request and fulfill your request to the extent possible under the public record law. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Strout argued: The public records statute does not expressly exempt any and all documents related to open and pending criminal cases… WCDAO has failed to explain with specificity why the records responsive to our request… fall under any cognizable exception to the public records law. 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 docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are related to active and ongoing litigation in Worcester County Superior Court. See Commonwealth v. Ortiz, Angel, (Docket No. 2485CR00161). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR26/1362 Page 3 April 23, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michaela Roberta Martin Strout. Esq. Rebecca Jacobstein, Esq.