MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Erin Smith v. Massachusetts Gaming Commission (SPR 20170452)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond · Filed 03-21-2017

ClosedTime PetitionPetitioner Won

SPR 20170452 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Erin Smith concerning records held by Massachusetts Gaming Commission, opened 03-21-2017. Type: Time Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond.

Case Details

Case Number
20170452
Case Type
Time Petition
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Erin Smith
Custodian
Massachusetts Gaming Commission
Date Opened
03-21-2017
Date Closed
03-24-2017

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords March 24, 201 7 Carrie Torrisi, Esq. Staff Attorney Massachusetts Gaming Commission 101 Federal Street, li11 Floor Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Torrisi: I have received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (Commission) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of requested records, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66 § lO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the Commission provided a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). Specifically, Erin Smith of Fox 25 News requested emails sent and received by the Commission's Director of Responsible Gaming from June 8, 2016 to present concerning the PlayMyWay Program, including data collected and reports about the program. Petitions/or an extension of time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Carrie Torrisi, Esq. Page 2 March 24, 2017 (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66 § lO(c) If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 CMR 36.06(4)(b). Current petition In your petition dated March 21, 2017 you explain the Commission requests "an extension of an addition 20 business days within which to respond to the above request." You note that "an initial search of the Director of Responsible Gaming's emails returned over 3,000 results, which we are in the process of segregating for responsiveness." You also indicate the requestor was forwarded this request and assents to the extension. In an email dated March, 22 2017 Erin Smith confirms her agreement to an April 14th deadline for the production of responsive records. Conclusion In light of the requestor's agreement to the April 14th production deadline, I will not opine on the Commission's petition for an extension of time to furnish responsive records. See G. L. c. 66 § lO(b)(vi) ("the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein"). The Department is advised it must provide the records by April 14, 2017 in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Erin Smith