MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Seth Kershner v. Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (SPR 20181519)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 10-12-2018

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20181519 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Seth Kershner concerning records held by Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, opened 10-12-2018. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20181519
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Seth Kershner
Custodian
Suffolk County Sheriff's Department
Date Opened
10-12-2018
Date Closed
10-26-2018
Date Request Submitted
04-29-2018
Response Provided Date
05-05-2018
Processing Fees Charged
0.00
Petitions Regarding Fees
No
Time to Comply
7 Business Days (11-6-18)
Went to Court
No

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords October 26, 2018 SPRlS/1519 Maria F. Romero, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Suffolk County Sheriffs Department 200 Nashua Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Romero: I have received the petition of Seth Kershner appealing the response of the Suffolk County Sheriffs Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08. Specifically, on August 3, 2018 Mr. Kershner requested photographs and video recordings of use of force incidents occurring on identified dates. On August 7, 2018, the Department provided Mr. Kershner with a fee estimate of 19 hours at $25.00 per hour for a total fee of $475.00, as well as a supplemental fee estimate on/or around September 1o th to include an additional fee to redact the requested videos at a cost of $3,750.00. Mr. Kershner's September 14, 2018 request In a September 14, 2018 email, Mr. Kershner made a revised request narrowing the scope with respect to the use of force videos. On October 9, 2018, the Department provided Mr. Kershner with a response and fee estimate regarding his September 14th revised request. The Department's letter states, "[o]riginally the Department timely issued a fee letter, which was later amended to accurately reflect the cost for the time to redact nineteen (19) videos as requested. Since then, you have amended your request to include only the above dates, which includes six (6) videos. The amended fee to redact six videos is twelve hundred dollars ($1200.00), calculated by the time estimate for the lowest paid person that is qualified to comply with the request: 48 hours at $25 per hour." Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations (Regulations) all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten business days ofreceipt of the request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)-(b). The response may contain, among other things, an offer to provide records, 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

Maria F. Romero, Esq. SPR18/1519 Page 2 October 26, 2018 a fee estimate for provision of the records, or a denial. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b ). All records custodians must comply with both the Public Records Law and the Regulations with respect to the timeliness of response. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, itemized, good faith estimate of any fees that may be charged must be provided within ten business days. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(a)-(l). A records custodian may not charge a fee unless the custodian provides a written response in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 1 O(b) within ten business days following receipt of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(e ). It is unclear whether the Department provided a response to Mr. Kershner within ten business days following the receipt of Mr. Kershner's September 14th request. I find the Department must demonstrate whether it responded to the September 14th records request within ten business days following receipt of the request in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § lO(e) and 950 C.M.R 32.06(2)(c). Order Accordingly, I find that the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Kershner with a · response in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. A copy of any such response that accompanies the records must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Seth Kershner