Liriano, Kelvin v. Attorney General's Office (SPR 20261406)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 29, 2026 SPR26/1406 Hanne Rush, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Rush: I have received the petition of Kelvin Nova Liriano appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 20, 2026, Mr. Nova Liriano requested “public records pursuant to G.L. c. 66, § l 0, specifically relating to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office defense of Suffolk Superior Court case No. 2484CV032 l 2 from August 28, 2017, through the present, including but not limited to:” [1] Documents, records, or materials referenced or relied upon by the Attorney General’s Office when asserting to the Court that inaccuracies associated with Plaintiff’s criminal record were corrected in approximately one week (“seven- day” error). [2] Certifications, confirmations, official records, or database entries from DCJIS, Massachusetts Probation Service, Boston Municipal Court, or other state or local agencies concerning the creation, correction, reassignment, modification, or status of criminal justice identifiers associated with Plaintiff, including PCF number 5437104 and XREF identifier 23582756. [3] All internal or external communications (emails, letters, memoranda) between the Attorney General’s Office and any agency regarding the accuracy, duration, correction, handling, reassignment, or dissemination of criminal records associated with Plaintiff. [4] Internal analyses, audits, or summaries prepared by or for the Attorney General’s Office concerning Plaintiff’s criminal record accuracy, the duration of any inaccuracies, and corrective actions taken or not taken. [5] Any training materials, policies, guidelines, or manuals referenced by the 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

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/1406 Page 2 April 29, 2026 Attorney General’s Office regarding handling or correcting disputed criminal record information. [6] Any internal inquiries, reviews, or investigations conducted by or for the Attorney General’s Office related to Plaintiff’s allegations about incorrect criminal justice identifiers or record inaccuracies. The AGO provided Mr. Nova Liriano with a response on April 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Nova Liriano petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1406, 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. 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. Status of the requestor; reason for the request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Mr. Nova Liriano’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record.

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/1406 Page 3 April 29, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Nova Liriano asserts that the AGO “[f]ailed to produce responsive records; [f]ailed to conduct or describe an adequate search; [f]ailed to meet its burden to justify withholding; and [p]rovided a response that is internally inconsistent and unsupported.” The AGO’s April 9th Response In its April 9, 2026 response, the AGO cited Exemptions (a), (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law and attorney-client privilege to withhold the requested records. Additionally, the AGO stated, “a public records request is not a discovery request” and further asserted, public records request must “reasonably describe” the records being sought so that a custodian “can identify and locate [the requested records] promptly.” See G.L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and 950 CMR 32.06(b); see also Friedman v. Division of Admin. Law Appeals & Bureau of Special Edu. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 816 (2024) (“[t]he reasonable description requirement is a necessary bulwark of the public records law, as the law ‘was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-time investigators on behalf of requesters.’” (citation omitted)). Requests that are articulated with very broad language that call upon personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what records may or may not be responsive to the request do not meet the statutory standard for “reasonableness.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Notwithstanding the above, using our custodial knowledge the AGO has identified that records that may be responsive to your request are part of the AGO’s case file in a pending litigation matter in which you are the plaintiff. Accordingly, records that may be responsive to your request and subject to public disclose consist of the exhibits attached to your Complaint filed in the matter, which you already have. Please be advised that the AGO found no records responsive to Requests 8-10. Finally, the AGO is withholding from disclosure records contained within the case file that may be responsive to Requests 1 through 7 in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26, as they constitute: (a) information specifically and/or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute, namely, G.L. c. 6, §§ 167, 172 (Criminal Offender Record Information); (d) deliberative information or communications relating to an ongoing deliberative process, namely, the AGO’s legal positions and analysis concerning pending litigation, the disclosure of which would taint this policymaking process by inhibiting the candid thinking that results in reasoned and legally defensible courses of action now and in the future, and/or that constitutes attorney work product as articulated in DaRosa v. City of New Bedford and (f) investigatory materials that relate to the AGO’s pending litigation matter that are necessarily compiled out of the public view, the disclosure of

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/1406 Page 4 April 29, 2026 which would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. Finally, communications between the AGO and its agency client, the Brighton District Court, are protected under the attorney-client communications privilege, consistent with the holding in Suffolk Const. Co., Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset Management. The AGO further advised that this matter is in litigation. See Kelvin Nova Liriano v. Brighton Municipal Court, Docket No. 2484CV03212 pending in Suffolk Superior Court. 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 the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Suffolk Superior Court 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). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a), (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law and attorney-client privilege to the requested records. Please note 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: Kelvin Nova Liriano