Denying CCC Request, Judge Rules O’Brien-Goldberg Documents Will Be Public 

“Unrestricted access to the documentary evidence bearing on [the Cannabis Control Commission’s] dismissal of its Chairperson … must be respected.”


The thing about a lot of lawsuits, criminal and civil alike, is that they dredge up all sorts of hideous wreckage. That’s particularly true of any case that involves multiple parties, and which drags on for ages.

All of which describes the legal battle between Massachusetts Treasurer Deb Goldberg and former Cannabis Control Commission Chair Shannon O’Brien. Goldberg suspended O’Brien in September 2023, after which the latter filed an action in Suffolk County Superior Court for injunctive relief, “arguing that she was entitled to adequate notice of the allegations and an opportunity to defend herself against the same.”

What has followed has been a humiliating public shitfight that’s included minor fireworks such as a last-minute temporary restraining order to suspend a contentious hearing, as well as major allegations of bullying, mismanagement, and bigotry regarding the former chair’s CCC tenure. For her part, O’Brien, who was officially fired in September 2024 after collecting six figures in state pay on suspension, has made ugly claims about her former workplace, charging ex-colleagues of conspiring against her and the best interests of the cannabis industry.

Some players in this saga and attorneys, particularly those in O’Brien’s corner, have expressed interest in seeing as many documents and revelations from the case come to light as possible. Others, however, starting with the treasurer, have fought in the leadup to a looming trial to have thousands of pages impounded, or at least for most names noted therein to be redacted. But after a valiant effort at opacity, last week a Suffolk County Superior Court justice dashed any hopes that Goldberg, or CCC employees, appointees, and the agency itself had of getting ancillary actors anonymized. The decision read in part … 

“The Court concludes that the Treasurer, the CCC, and the CCC Intervenors have not demonstrated the good cause necessary to justify either impoundment or further redaction of the Administrative Record. The countervailing interests of both O’Brien and the broader public in unrestricted access to the documentary evidence bearing on this government agency’s dismissal of its Chairperson overwhelmingly tip the scale, and must be respected.”

The multi-volume report at the center of controversy

In the wake of a judge informing both parties to hurry and wrap up the saga which commenced in some form all the way back in 2022, this February it became clear that there would be no expediting. In a minor bombshell, State House News Service reported on “a five-volume administrative record of the case [filed] with the court.”

Colin A. Young, who has led coverage of this war, further reported, “The treasurer asked the judge to impound the four remaining volumes, which are thought to contain transcripts of testimony given in closed-door hearings, investigative reports, emails detailing employee complaints at the CCC, written testimony submitted in connection with the hearings, and more.”

In a comment to the News Service at the time, an O’Brien spokesman said “Goldberg’s attempt to keep thousands of pages of information related to O’Brien’s firing private ‘is making a mockery of the public’s right to know.’” Suffolk County Justice Robert B. Gordon, who denied the CCC’s motion last week, seems to agree, and appears to be pretty peeved with the attempt to block access. He also wrote: “The implications of the Treasurer’s and CCC Intervenors’ requests for impoundment are striking. … Instead, the Court joins the unanimous consensus of the past half-century. … 

“There is no suggestion that the documents at issue disclose the identities of juveniles or victims of criminal conduct, concern targeted sexual harassment or discrimination, or reveal private medical information, matters of sexual orientation, intimate relationships or other highly personal details such as might establish an overriding need for redaction.”

One commissioner’s request

In late March, Mass grass blog crusader Grant Smith Ellis reported that CCC Commissioner Nurys Camargo filed a “motion to intervene by interested third-party data subject” in Suffolk Superior. Specifically, she requested that her “personal identifying information” be redacted or impounded from certain documents in the Goldberg-O’Brien suit.

That motion raised some questions—namely, What’s in those files that she presumably does not want the public to see? And matters became even more confusing after Camargo announced plans to step down from her post on May 22, about four months before her term was set to expire. There are countless theories out there about the contents of Goldberg’s tome on O’Brien’s contentious tenure, but up until this point, with the fate of several thousand pages still in legal limbo, only a few privileged parties have seen all the goods.

As for when the rest of us can read the documents, Mass Lawyers Weekly explained: “The judge’s ruling does not mean the information in the remaining volumes will be available right away. Gordon declared that the terms of his order would be stayed for 20 days, and up to as many as 60 days, to give any ‘aggrieved party’ a chance to file notice of an appeal of the ruling.

“Once the stay is over, Goldberg will have one week to file a new copy of the administrative record ‘subject only to the redaction of O’Brien’s social security number and other personnel identifying information’ as defined under a rule of the court.”