← Back to Search
Allen Waller v. Marblehead, Town of (SPR 20190763)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 04-12-2019
ClosedTime PetitionDecision
SPR 20190763 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Allen Waller concerning records held by Marblehead, Town of, opened 04-12-2019. Type: Time Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20190763
- Case Type
- Time Petition
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Allen Waller
- Custodian
- Marblehead, Town of
- Date Opened
- 04-12-2019
- Date Closed
- 04-22-2019
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 April 22, 2019 SPR19/0763 Lisa Mead, Esq. Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC Town of Marblehead 30 Green Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Dear Attorney Mead: I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Marblehead (Town) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies ofrequested records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). On March 12, 2019 the Town received a request from Allen Waller seeking "all correspondence, memoranda, and emails" and other documents related to the Essex County Superior Court Case number 1777CV01884, Maverick Construction Management Services, Inc. vs. Town ofM arblehead. 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 Lisa Mead, Esq. SPR19/0763 Page 2 April 22, 2019 G. L. c. 66, § lO(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 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current petition In its April 12, 2019 petition the Town requests to "be allowed the maximum number of days in which to respond." The Town explains it "determined that the scope of the request was much larger than initially anticipated" and "believes there to be responsive records dating back to 1996." The Town further explains "[b]ecause this request specifically concerns current, ongoing litigation, it will be necessary to segregate and redact many of the responsive documents under the attorney-client privilege." The Town estimates "that approximately 300 hours are necessary to respond, at a cost of $7,530.00." The Town also indicates that it "asked Mr. Waller to make a reasonable modification in the scope of his request to enable the Town to provide a more efficient and affordable response and offered assistance in doing so." Conclusion Accordingly, I find that in light of the Town's request to Mr. Waller to modify the scope of the request, it is unnecessary to opine on the Town's petition seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested record. See G.L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vii); see also G.L. c. 66, § lO(a)(i) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). However, if the Town requires additional time to produce the responsive records after receiving clarification from Mr. Waller, it may submit a petition within 20 days of modification seeking an extension of time in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). Sincerely, ~~ Supervisor of Records cc: Allen Waller