In my January 4th reconsideration determination, I found that the records at issue in this appeal are the subject of a disputeinactivelitigation. Consequently, I declined to reverse my December 8th determination. In the present appeal, the Town responded on February 10, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Towns response, Mr. Calhoun appealed and SPR21/0348 was opened as a result.
The Citys March 24th response In its March 24th response, the City asserted, the records you seek are the subjects of disputes inactivelitigation, administrative hearings or mediation. As such, requests through discovery and court subpoena are the appropriate avenue for you to obtain documents.
The Citys March 24th response In its March 24th response, the City asserted, the records you seek are the subjects of disputes inactivelitigation, administrative hearings or mediation. As such, requests through discovery and court subpoena are the appropriate avenue for you to obtain documents.
The Citys March 24th response In its March 24th response, the City asserted, the records you seek are the subjects of disputes inactivelitigation, administrative hearings or mediation. As such, requests through discovery and court subpoena are the appropriate avenue for you to obtain documents.
See SPR19/1565 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 12, 2019); SPR19/1641 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 26, 2019) and SPR19/1730 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 10, 2019), In my September 10" determination, I directed the Division to provide additional information regarding how the requested records are related to or are the subjects of disputeinactivelitigation.
of this appeal, Attorney Lee emailed this office on July 30, 2020, indicating their July 21st response explains the position of my office for both appeals, given that the requested records relate to an ongoing prosecution with an impoundment order. 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
The Department stated that [a]s a general rule, appeals under the public records law may be denied if the public records in question are the subjects of disputes inactivelitigation (950 CMR 32.08(2)(b)(1). In this Ryan OShea Page 3 June 16, 2023 SPR23/1195 matter, it is the Towns position that the pending litigation exemption is applicable to this public records request at this time.
The Departments September 11th Response In its September 11, 2023 response, the Department states: With respect to your request, the Department intends to withhold the records in their entirety pursuant to 950 CMR 32.08(2) as the responsive records in question are related to the subjects of disputes inactivelitigation.
The School also stated that, [t[he records in question are the subject of disputeinactivelitigation ... Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G.
Active 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 inactive litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. With respect to Mr. Raymonds records request, these requested records are the subject of a disputein activelitigation. See Eric Mack v.
Johnson Page 3 November 28, 2023 SPR23/2510 question are the subjects of disputes inactivelitigation and the records submitted in this portal (launched in 2023) do not have a relationship to an event that occurred in November of 2021. The records I requested, in all categories, are not records currently under litigation in Eric Mack.