Woodward, Curt v. Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (SPR 20150681)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor of& cords December 18,2015 SPRlS/681 Ms. Joanne F. Campo Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 51 70 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Ms. Campo: I have received the petition of Curt Woodward, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (Office) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lO(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Woodward requested "[a]l records, for the dates between May 1, 2012 and September 30, 2012, regarding the company Uber and the legality of its operations in the state." It should be noted that Mr. Woodward's petition did not contain a copy of his original request made to the Office of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Woodward is hereby advised that appeals to the Supervisor of Records must include a copy of the letter by which the request was made. 950 CMR 32.08(2). The Office initially provided a response in a letter dated May 13, 2015 in which it provided five hundred forty-four (544) pages of responsive records at no charge. The Office redacted certain portions of the documents "pursuant to privilege" and withheld other documents entirely "as confidential privileged communications." You also indicated certain telephone numbers were redacted. Basis of appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Woodward states that "the agency redacted portions of certain documents and withheld other documents entirely, saying only that they were confidential privileged communications, without citing a specific reason or a legal exemption to the public disclosure law." OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. Joanne F. Campo SPR15/681 Page Two December 18,2015 The Office's December 9, 2015 response Subsequent to the intervention of this office, you provided Mr. Woodward with a supplemental response dated December 9, 2015 in which you provide more detail regarding the Office's exemption and privilege claims. Specifically, you indicate the Office made redactions pursuant to the second clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). You also explained that the Office withheld certain emails pursuant to the common law attorney-client privilege. Whereas Mr. Woodward's appeal was based upon the Office's failure to cite a specific reason or exemption to withhold or redact records, I will consi~.T. r this appeal closed in light of the Office's more-detailed December 9 response. Mr. Woodw~d may appeal the substantive nature of the Office's response within ninety (90) days. S e 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). n . illiams Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Curt Woodward