← Back to Search
Matthew S. Furman, Esq. v. Revere, City of - Police Department (SPR 20170873)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond · Filed 06-27-2017
ClosedTime PetitionPetitioner Won
SPR 20170873 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Matthew S. Furman, Esq. concerning records held by Revere, City of - Police Department, opened 06-27-2017. Type: Time Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20170873
- Case Type
- Time Petition
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Matthew S. Furman, Esq.
- Custodian
- Revere, City of - Police Department
- Date Opened
- 06-27-2017
- Date Closed
- 07-05-2017
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 5,2017 SPRl71873 Lt. Michelle Mangino Revere Police Department 400 Revere Beach Parkway Revere, MA 02 15 1 Dear Lt. Mangino: I have received your petition on behalf of the Revere Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to respond to an order given by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) to furnish copies of requested records, or any portion thereof. G. L, c. 66 tj lO(c); -see -also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Matthew S. Furrnan, Esq. requested four categories of records from the Department. The Department is requesting "an additional 5 business days in order to respond to request number 4." Petitions for an extension of time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records 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 (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous One Ashburton Place, Room 1719 , Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (61 7) 727-2832. Fax: (61 7) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre pre@sec.state.ma.us Lt. Michelle Mangino Page 2 July 5,2017 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 Id. obligation to provide copies of the records sought. 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 Attorney Furman's request was the subject of a previous appeal with this office. See 171730 Supervisor of Records Determination (June 9,20 17). In my June 9thd etermination I ordered the Department to provide Attorney Furman with a detailed response to the requests, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations., Please note that a similar request from Attorney Furman is the subject of a second appeal with this office. $ee SPR171840. I will issue a separate determination for this appeal. In the Department's June 26,201 7 petition, you indicate "I have complied with your order regarding request number 3, which you and Attorney Furman should have received electronically today." You explain you are working to comply with the order and you seek "an additional 5 business days in order to respond to request number 4." In subsequent correspondence dated June 30,2017, the Department provided a more detailed response to Attorney Furman. You explained to a Public Records Division staff attorney that in light of the Department's June 3othr esponse, the Department is no longer seeking additional time to respond to the June 9tho rder. Conclusion Accordingly, it is unnecessary to opine on the Department's petition. Attorney Furman may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety days. $ee 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Matthew S. Furman, Esq.