Erin Tiernan v. Office of the District Attorney - Plymouth District (SPR 20180306)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords March 14, 2018 SPRlS/306 Keith Garland, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the Plymouth District Attorney 32 Belmont Street, P.O. Box 1665 Brockton, MA 02303-1665 Dear Attorney Garland: I have received your petition on behalf of the Office of the District Attorney - Plymouth District (DAO) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested 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 DAO furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10 (c ). Erin Tiernan of The Patriot Ledger requested "an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records of any and all itemized bills sent from Mintz Levin to the District Attorney's Office pertaining to the wrongful termination suit filed by former Assistant District Attorney John E. Bradley, including record of payment by the D.A.'s office." 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 ofthe 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

Keith Garland, Esq. SPR18/306 Page2 March 14, 2018 (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(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 ofthe recordssought.Jd. 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 C.M.R. 36.06(4 )(b ). Current petition Ms. Tieman's request was the subject of previous appeals with this office. See SPR181176 Determination ofthe Supervisor of Records (February 22, 2018). In my February 22nd determination, I ordered the DAO to provide Ms. Tieman with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. In the DAO's March 8, 2018 petition you indicate "[i]n gathering the invoices, I am estimating that there will be 300 plus pages. On those pages, there are approximately 5-10 description paragraphs of the work provided. Since I was not a part of the lawsuit, in order to redact and/or index, I will need to sit down with the people involved and go through each one. In terms of scheduling conflicts and other work commitments, I anticipate that this will take some time." You also explain that "general descriptions, hours billed, and dollar amounts will not be redacted." You assert that "due to the number of people involved, scheduling conflicts, other commitments, the fact that the privileged information is so inextricably intertwined with the non privileged material, the sheer number of individual descriptions, and the need to complete compiling the responsive records, I am requesting an extension ofthe deadline to respond." You note that "I estimate that I will not be able to complete this task before March 30,2018. Therefore, I am respectfully requesting that the deadline for a response be extended 20 business days, to AprilS, 2018." 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 ofthe initial ten business day deadline in my February 22nd order. To the extent possible, the DAO must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Keith Garland, Esq. SPR18/306 Page 3 March 14, 2018 Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the DAO is granted an extension oftime 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 SPR18/176. Ms. Tieman 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, §§ lO(c), lOA(c ). . ......... ·······················- ·········-·---·····---··-----·------·-·-··-··---· Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Erin Tieman