Hausman, Esq., Samuel v. Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (SPR 20261461)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 28, 2026 SPR26/1461 Kylie Araujo Executive Assistant Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority 10 Oak Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Ms. Araujo: I have received the petition of Samuel M. Hausman, Esq., of Hausman Law Offices, appealing the response of the Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 5, 2026, Attorney Hausman requested the following records pertaining to an identified incident: [1] All incident reports, including all that fully identify: a. the operator of the GATRA vehicle at the time of the incident, b. her employer at the time of the incident if not GATRA, c. make, model, registration number and owner of the vehicle at the time of this incident. d. all witnesses to the incident. [2] All video, audio, and audiovisual recordings concerning this incident. [3] All 911/dispatch calls concerning this incident. [4] All associated police reports concerning this incident. [5] Any and all third parties that GATRA contracted with to train the operator of this vehicle on behalf of GATRA at the time of the incident, and to operate and maintain the vehicle involved in the incident. [6] If the vehicle operated on behalf of GATRA was owned or operated by a person or entity not directly employed by GATRA, then please provide contact and insurance information, including certificates of insurance, from that entity. 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

Kylie Araujo SPR26/1461 Page 2 April 28, 2026 [7] If the operator of the vehicle on behalf of GATRA was directly employed by an entity of other than GATRA, then please provide contact and insurance information, including certificates of insurance, from that entity. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0936 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 24, 2026). In my March 24th determination, I ordered the Authority to identify the responsive records and clarify its claims to withhold them under Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. The Authority responded on April 7, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Attorney Hausman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1461, 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. The Authority’s April 7th Response In its April 7, 2026 response, the Authority stated: GATRA believes that it has properly responded to your public records request, and disagrees with the Supervisor’s determination. Nonetheless, and without waiving its position that responsive records were appropriately withheld, GATRA has authorized its insurer, with whom you have already been in contact, to release to you records responsive to your request. Note that GATRA does not have in its possession any relevant police reports.

Kylie Araujo SPR26/1461 Page 3 April 28, 2026 It appears Attorney Hausman subsequently reached out to the Authority’s insurer on April 8, 2026 to retrieve the responsive records mentioned in the Authority’s response. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Hausman stated: It appears that GATRA’s response of April 7, 2026 does not comply with the Supervisor’s Decision in that it did not itself provide any of the information I requested and that it was ordered to either provide or give a detailed justification of any privilege claims, including specific identification of what if anything it was withholding under such privilege claims. I endeavored to follow up with GATRA’s insurer, which released a video (3 angles) of 1 minute and 59 seconds that may not be a full, unedited audiovisual recording of the incident, and a 1 page partially completed incident report, dated 13 days after the incident, completed by someone who may or may not have been the operator of the GATRA van, with no identifying information… Appellant respectfully appeals GATRA’s response and demands that GATRA be directed to fully and formally comply, in its own name and provide all information requested in the Supervisor’s Determination dated 03/24/26 in this matter, SPR26/0936. Additional Records Based on the Authority’s response and the information provided in the appeal petition, it is unclear whether the Authority possesses any additional records responsive to the request other than those provided by its insurer. The Authority must clarify whether it possesses any additional records Attorney Hausman seeks. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist the requestor in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Further, to the extent applicable, the Authority must identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the Authority must explain with specificity how Exemption (d) applies to any remaining withheld records. It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Authority must clarify these matters.

Kylie Araujo SPR26/1461 Page 4 April 28, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide Attorney Hausman 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. Attorney Hausman may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Samuel M. Hausman, Esq.