141 N.E.3d 429
Mass.2020Background
- The Boston Globe requested from the Attorney General and all eleven district attorneys 23 data fields from prosecutors' internal electronic case databases for each criminal case (e.g., case ID, offense date, charge code, defendant race/gender, docket number, disposition, sentence).
- The supervisor of records ruled the data were public; three district attorneys refused and the Attorney General sued for a declaratory judgment ordering disclosure; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for the AG.
- The district attorneys appealed, arguing (1) the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act exempted the data from disclosure under G. L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (a), and (2) the request would force them to create a new electronic report (beyond what public records law requires).
- The SJC held that the requested data would be exempt under CORI if individuals could be directly or indirectly identified (because a criminal history could be compiled), and that the docket number is the crucial field enabling such identification.
- The court ordered production of 22 of the 23 fields, but required segregation and redaction of docket numbers; it also held that extracting existing data from searchable databases is not the creation of a new record under the public records law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AG) | Defendant's Argument (DAs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requested database fields are "specifically or by necessary implication" exempt under CORI (G. L. c. 6) via G. L. c. 4, § 7(a) | Data are not CORI because the Globe did not request defendant names or otherwise identify individuals | Disclosure would allow compilation of criminal histories (via docket numbers and internal IDs) and thus undermine CORI protections and sealing/expungement statutes | Exemption applies only if data permit direct/indirect identification. Because docket numbers allow identification, docket numbers must be redacted; other fields may be produced if no identifiability remains |
| Whether the Globe's request would unlawfully require creation of a new record (a computer program or new report) beyond disclosure duties | Extracting requested fields from existing searchable databases is not creating new records; regulations support producing segregable extracts | Producing the requested extract would require developing new queries/programming and thus creation of a new record not required by law | Querying and exporting existing data fields is not creation of a new record; the DAs must produce the segregable extract (subject to reasonable fees) |
| Whether redaction of docket numbers adequately protects CORI and sealing/expungement purposes | Redaction of docket numbers prevents indirect identification and preserves CORI balance while allowing public access to case-level data | Redaction is necessary; full production (including docket numbers) would enable compiling histories and defeat sealing/expungement protections | Redaction of docket numbers is an effective, narrowly tailored remedy; defendant ID numbers may remain if they do not permit identification |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. District Attorney for the Middle Dist., 439 Mass. 374 (2003) (docket numbers treated as court records in a narrow request; court distinguished on scope)
- Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Department of Public Health, 482 Mass. 427 (2019) (recognizes heightened privacy risk from vertical compilations that aggregate individual records)
- National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) (FOIA does not require an agency to create new documents)
- National Sec. Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency, 898 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D.D.C. 2012) (searching or sorting an existing electronic database to produce an extract does not create a new record)