David Sullivan v. Revere, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20170984)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords July 26, 2017 SPR17/984 Ashley E. Melnik City Clerk City of Revere 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151 Dear Ms. Melnik: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Revere (City) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested public record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66 § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the City provided a copy ofthe petition to the requester. G. L. c. 66 § 10 ( c). David A. Sullivan, Esq.'s client requested all emails and text messages sent or received by an identified individual, to and from multiple others, spanning from January 1, 2016 to May 1, 2016. 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 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. G. L. c. 66 § 10(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

Ashley E. Melnik SPR17/984 Page 2 July 26, 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 requester within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 CMR 36.06(4 )(b ). Current petition In your petition you explain the City is seeking a time extension because the "remaining tasks to complete the public records request are extremely time consuming." The City explains "the initial search by the City's MIS Department generated 52,926 emails responsive to the request" and the City hired a "legal temp" to assist with the review process. You indicate "the legal temp began working on this request on June 16, 2017 at a rate of approximately 700-800 emails per day." In its petition received July 19, 2017 the City indicates they have "reviewed approximately 5,200 emails, and those emails have been set aside for redaction purposes." You estimate an additional "9,000 emails still need to be reviewed and potentially held under the attorney client privilege exemption and/or redacted." You assert "the City will require additional ·time to redact a potential14,000 emails." I understand the City provided 11,947 unredacted emails on July 14, 2017 and an additional14,414 unredacted emails on July 25, 2017. In an email to this office dated July 26, 2017, City explains over 10,000 emails still need to be reviewed or redacted. Conclusion I find that in light of the volume of responsive records and the capacity of the City to produce records, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66 § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the City an extension of fifteen business days from the date of this determination to furnish copies ofthe remaining responsive records or any portion thereof. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(e). The City is advised it must provide the records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. To the extent possible, the City must continue to provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Attorney Sullivan may seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the superior court under G. L. c. 66 § 10A(c).

Ashley E. Melnik SPR17/984 Page 3 July 26, 2017 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: David A. Sullivan, Esq.