Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of - Fire Department (SPR 20261400)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 23, 2026 SPR26/1400 Captain Corey S. Rutledge Saugus Fire Department 298 Central Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Captain Rutledge: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Saugus Fire Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 30, 2025, Ms. Valentino requested, “... firearm logs for Dec. 16, 2025.” Previous Appeal and In Camera Review This request was the subject of a previous appeal and an in camera review. See SPR26/0241 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 6, 2026), SPR26/0588 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 6, 2026 and April 1, 2026), and SPR26/1187 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 14, 2026). In my April 14th determination, I learned that the Department provided a supplemental response to Ms. Valentino on April 14, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1400, 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 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

Captain Corey S. Rutledge SPR26/1400 Page 2 April 23, 2026 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 petition, Ms. Valentino argued, “[t]here have been no changes my original appeal stands.” The Department’s April 14th Response In its April 14, 2026 response, the Department provided an amended incident report. In a prior response dated February 19, 2026, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of the redactions. See SPR26/0588. 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 Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., v Boston Ret. Bd., 388, 427 Mass. (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.

Captain Corey S. Rutledge SPR26/1400 Page 3 April 23, 2026 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. 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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 February 19th response, the Department states, “[r]egarding the second and third points of appeal, per MGL Chapter 4, Section 7 (26)(c), I determined the incident type and nature of services rendered on scene were private information for the parties involved. The requestor of the information, Ms. Gianna Valentino, did not establish her rights to the information. I could not determine if she was a medical proxy, had power of attorney, or held other rights to the information requested. For these reasons, I redacted the original incident report …” In its April 14th response, the Department stated, “[a]ttached find a redacted incident report. I am reaffirming my previous redactions under Exemption c.” Based upon the prior in camera review of the responsive record and review of the April 14th amended redacted incident report, I find that the Department has met its burden to redact portions of the record under Exemption (c). Thus, I find the Department has met its burden in responding to this request under 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).

Captain Corey S. Rutledge SPR26/1400 Page 4 April 23, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino