Joe Difazio v. Cohasset, Town of - Town Manager (SPR 20191071)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 4, 2019 SPR19/1071 Peter J. Berry, Esq. Brooks & DeRensis Town of Cohasset 111 Devonshire Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02109 Dear Attorney Berry: I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Cohasset (Town) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). As required by law, the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. Specifically, on February 5, 2019, Mr. DiFazio requested "[a]ny records, including electronic communication, relating to any Title IX investigations undertaken by Cohasset's insurance carrier on the town's public school system related to [a n identified former school employee] and/or the school's response to allegations against him and [t]he final report of any such Title IX investigations." Previous Appeals The requested records were the subject of previous determinations. See SPR19/0507 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 19, 2019; April 26, 2019; May 21, 2019). In my May 21st determination, I ordered the Town to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide the requestor with responsive records, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. 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; 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

Peter J. Berry, Esq. SPR19/1071 Page 2 June 4, 2019 (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, § 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 the Town's petition dated May 28, 2019, the Town "requests that the Supervisor grant an extension of the time by which the Town is required to provide the redacted report to 30 days from the date the Supervisor grants the extension." In support of its petition the Town explains "[t]he Title IX investigative report was not prepared by the Town but was conducted by an investigator retained by John Davis, the attorney appointed by the Town's insurance carrier. The report is approximately 100 pages long. Given the legal aspects of your order, the report needs to be reviewed by both Town Counsel for properly redacting identifying witness information and by Attorney Davis, who retained the investigator, for work product opinion." Further, the Town explains "[b] oth Attorney Davis and I are out on long planned vacations the week of June 3-7." I find that in light of the need segregate and redact the records and capacity of the Town in fulfilling the request, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time of 25 business days. G. L. c. 66 § lO(c)(i)-(iv). Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Town is granted an extension of 25 business days to produce responsive records. The records must be provided consistent with the Public Records

Peter J. Berry, Esq. SPR19/I071 Page 3 June 4, 2019 Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Town's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Additionally, the requestor may seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the superior court under G. L. c. 66, § IOA(c). Sincerely, ~~ Supervisor of Records cc: Joe DiFazio