Eliza Lockhart-Jenks, Esq. v. Lawrence, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20170453)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords March 29, 2017 Raquel D. Ruano, Esq. First Assistant City Attorney City of Lawrence 200 Common Street, Room 306 Lawrence, MA O1 840 Dear Attorney Ruano: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Lawrence (City) 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 City provided a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § IO(c). Specifically, Attorney Eliza Lockhart-Jenks requested copies of internal affairs complaints from January 1, 2012 to present. Petitions for 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 ofrequests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66 § lO(c). 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

Raquel D. Ruano, Esq. Page 2 March 29, 2017 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 22, 2017, you indicate the City is requesting an extension of an additional thirty days to produce records. You explain that the request "will probably be thousands of pages and given that they are internal affairs documents will need to be redacted to withhold identifying information of any victims/witnesses." You also provide that limited staff will have the capability to handle the response to this request. You also indicate the requestor was forwarded this request and assents to the extension. In an email dated March 27, 2017, Attorney Lockhart-Jenks confirms her agreement to the thirty day extension for the production of responsive records. Conclusion In light of the requestor's agreement to the additional thirty days, I will not opine on the City's petition for an extension of time to furnish responsive records. See G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b )(vi) ("the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein"). The City is advised it must provide the records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the City's response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Eliza Lockhart-Jenks, Esq.