Todd Wallack v. Office of the District Attorney - Bristol District (SPR 20171560)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords November 9, 2017 SPR17/1560 Yul-mi Cho, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney - Bristol District 868 Purchase Street, P.O. Box 973 New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Cho: I have received your petition on behalf of the Office of the District Attorney - Bristol District (DAO) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the DAO furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). Specifically, Mr. Wallack of the Boston Globe requested "any and all records" pertaining to an identified individual. Mr. Wallack specified categories of records that should be included with the requested records. 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. 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

Yul-mi Cho, Esq. SPR17/1560 Page 2 November 9, 2017 G. L. c. 66, § IO(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 Mr. Wallack's request was the subject of previous appeals with this office. See SPRI 7/ 706 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 26, 2017); SPRI 7/801 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 28, 2017); SPRI 7/986 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 2, 2017); SPRI 7/1144 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 6, 2017); SPRI 7/1404 Supervisor of Records Determination (October 18, 2017). In my October 18th determination, I ordered the DAO to provide Mr. Wallack with responsive records, particularly those that were previously disclosed through the prior trial or motions, in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations (Regulations) within ten business days. The DAO received the October 18th order on October 20, 2017. In your petition dated November 1, 2017, you explain "[w]e continue to maintain our position, until the litigation on the issue of abatement for Mr. Hernandez's conviction and the direct appeal of Mr. Wallace's conviction have both been resolved, we may not disseminate the responsive records. But we have elected to assist Mr. Wallack with his access to the court's records in the case by obtaining an electronic copy of the court records from the criminal clerk's office on his behalf." Additionally, you indicate "we consulted with the records specialist at the criminal clerk's office who has custody of the records, and submitted a written request for a scanned copy of all publicly available court records in this case." Further, you explain "additional time will be necessary to make the redactions." You request an extension of fifteen business days to comply with the order. I find that in light of my previous determination, the actions required of the DAO therein and the efforts undertaken to respond to the order, the DAO has established good cause to permit an extension of time. I hereby grant the DAO an extension of fifteen business days from the expiration of the initial ten business day deadline in my October 18th order. To the extent possible, the DAO must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Yul-mi Cho, Esq. SPRl 7/1560 Page 3 November 9, 2017 Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the DAO is granted an extension of time to comply with the order in the manner described above. The response must be provided in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law, its Regulations and my previous determination. See SPRl 7/ 1404. Mr. Wallack may appeal the substantive nature of the DAO's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Please note that the requester has the right to seek judicial review of an unfavorable decision by commencing a civil action in the superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10( c ), 1O A( c ). Sincerely, · ~ Rebecca S. Murr~ Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Wallack