124 N.E.3d 127
Mass.2019Background
- Boston Globe requested electronic indices of birth and marriage records from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) — specifically the electronic copies displayed on public research-room computers (not the nonpublic VIP database).
- DPH produced death and divorce data but refused to release birth and marriage indices, invoking G. L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (a) (statutory exemptions) and (c) (privacy/personnel and medical files).
- Secretary of State records supervisor initially ordered disclosure, then (on reconsideration) permitted withholding under exemption (a); DPH also argued exemption (c) but the supervisor did not decide that claim.
- Superior Court granted DPH summary judgment under exemption (c) and denied Globe summary judgment under exemption (a); Globe appealed and case transferred to the SJC.
- The SJC vacated and remanded, directing the trial judge to make specific factual findings about: (a) whether present indices, when compared to future indices or searches, could reveal statutorily-impounded or medically exempt information (exemption (a) and first category of (c)); and (b) whether the aggregate indices implicate a privacy interest and, if so, whether public interest outweighs privacy (second category of (c)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exemption (a) (materials "specifically or by necessary implication exempted by statute") permits withholding the requested indices | Globe: indices consist of public database information and are not covered by the statutes DPH cites | DPH: statutes (VIP statute; statutes impounding or amending records) counsel against bulk disclosure because comparisons across time could reveal statutorily-protected data | Remanded: judge must find to what extent present indices compared with later indices could reveal statutorily-protected information and whether that risk brings indices within exemption (a) |
| Whether exemption (c) first category ("personnel and medical files or information") absolutely exempts indices as medical information | Globe: indices do not themselves disclose medical information (e.g., sex‑reassignment treatment) | DPH: comparison over time could reveal medical interventions (e.g., pre-amendment data) that are absolutely exempt | Remanded: judge must determine extent comparisons could reveal absolutely exempt medical information before deciding applicability of absolute exemption |
| Whether exemption (c) second category ("any other materials relating to a specifically named individual" that "may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy") protects the indices | Globe: information is already publicly available on registry computers and in paper indices; public interest in disclosure (e.g., oversight, research) is substantial | DPH: the indices are a compilation affecting millions; aggregation magnifies privacy risks (identity theft, unwanted intrusions); some records are statutorily impounded or amended | Remanded: judge must assess if compilation implicates a cognizable privacy interest (considering aggregation, availability elsewhere, fraud risk, intrusions) and, if so, balance against public interest |
| Scope of the public‑interest side of exemption (c) balancing | Globe: public interest includes oversight, research, fraud detection, demographic study — not just government operations | DPH/judge: public interest usually limited to learning about government operations; also raised a generalized "negative public interest" in releasing private data | Clarified on remand: public interest is not limited to government‑operation scrutiny; court should consider any specific, articulable public interest the requester identifies and whether disclosure is likely to advance it |
Key Cases Cited
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Department of Agric. Resources, 477 Mass. 280 (2017) (exemption (c) balancing framework and privacy factors)
- District Attorney for the Middle Dist. v. School Comm. of Wayland, 439 Mass. 374 (2003) (strict, narrow construction of public‑records exemptions)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 419 Mass. 852 (1995) (privacy factors and availability from other sources)
- United States Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (compilation vs. discrete information and privacy interest)
- Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415 (1988) (aggregation effect on privacy)
- Boston Retirement Bd. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. 427 (1983) (absolute exemption for personnel/medical records)
- United States Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (privacy harm increases when information is linked to identities)
- Favish v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (FOIA public‑interest showing required to overcome privacy)
- Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151 (1979) (public interest focused on government operations but broader purposes acknowledged)