Valentino, Gianna v. Essex County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20261396)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 28, 2026 SPR26/1396 Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Appeals Division Essex County District Attorney’s Office 10 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Attorney Jiang: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Essex 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 February 25, 2026, Ms. Valentino requested, “… copies of records pertaining to: Investigation and date of incident: Death of [an identified individual] Incident/date of death 12/16/2025 at [an identified address] Street In Saugus … I request the following specific record(s): all records that you can legally release regarding the above identified death.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0980 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 1, 2026). In my April 1st determination, I ordered the Office to provide Ms. Valentino with a written response. Subsequently, the Office responded on April 14, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1396, 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, § l0A(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). 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

Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. SPR26/1396 Page 2 April 28, 2026 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. Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Valentino stated the following: [1] The email that contained the report included a paragraph with a blanket statement for the privacy exemption for the redacted sections. The district attorney’s office has the burden of showing how the redacted information meets that criteria. The Essex District attorney’s office did not do that, they did not show how the redacted section met the criteria for the exception. They also over withheld the redacted information, such as the person that phoned in the wellness call, that is not exempt and the law mandates it shall be released. Therefore, the Essex, district attorney’s office did not meet the burden of the law. They didn’t show how the redacted sections meets the privacy exemption. Therefore the Essex District attorney needs to release a full copy of the report to me, unless they redact and specify the exemptions, and how that information meets the criteria for exemption. … [2] The Essex district attorney’s office is in possession of photographs and they did not release them. I’m appealing their response because I requested the entire file and it should’ve included the photographs in the district attorney’s office has the photographs, and they did not forward them. Most importantly, they didn’t state an exemption to be able to withhold. … [3] The descendants death certificate was part of the report that they forwarded, but they withheld it. As its district attorney’s office did not site an exemption for withholding the death certificate. … [4] The Essex, District Attorney redacted the individual or agency that requested a wellness check. They provided no exemption to redact this information. …

Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. SPR26/1396 Page 3 April 28, 2026 [5] There was a large portion of the report that was redacted. It’s unclear what was removed. Witness statements are not fact, are opinions and subjective. I believe the Essex District attorney’s office over redacted. The Office’s April 14th Response In its April 14, 2026 response, the Office stated, “[i]n accordance with the above- referenced determination, attached please find a redacted copy of the interim report relative to the investigation into the death of [an identified individual] on December 16, 2025…There are no further records in our system relative to this investigation. Requests for photographs taken at the scene may be directed to the Massachusetts State Police Crime Scene Services division. Requests for materials relative to the autopsy can be made through the Office of the Medical Examiner.” Additionally, the Office cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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 – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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.

Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. SPR26/1396 Page 4 April 28, 2026 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. In its response, the Office stated, Any portion of the report that discusses medical information regarding the decedent, a description of the interior of the decedent’s home, and witness statements describing the decedent’s medical status have been redacted. See G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c). In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Office’s claim to redact the records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, the Office must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c).

Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. SPR26/1396 Page 5 April 28, 2026 This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino