Cindy L. Christiansen, PhD v. Massachusetts Port Authority (SPR 20200333)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 02-21-2020

ClosedAppealDecision

SPR 20200333 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Cindy L. Christiansen, PhD concerning records held by Massachusetts Port Authority, opened 02-21-2020. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

View PDF Download PDF

Case Details

Case Number: 20200333
Case Type: Appeal
Case Subtype: Initial
Status: Closed
Requester: Cindy L. Christiansen, PhD
Custodian: Massachusetts Port Authority
Date Opened: 02-21-2020
Date Closed: 03-03-2020
Date Request Submitted: 02-05-2020
Processing Fees Charged: 0.00
Petitions Regarding Fees: No
Went to Court: No

View on official site →

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

March 3, 2020 SPR20/0333 Margarita Bardales Public Records Access Officer Massachusetts Port Authority One Harborside Drive, Suite 200S East Boston, MA 02128

Dear Ms. Bardales:

I have received the petition of Cindy L. Christiansen appealing the nonresponse of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically on February 5, 2020, Ms. Christiansen requested “monitor noise event files.”

The Public Records Law

The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § IJOA(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4), “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507,511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record.

Conclusion

Subsequent to the intervention by a staff member of the Public Record’s Division, I learned that the Authority provided Ms. Christiansen a response dated March 2, 2020. Whereas the basis of this appeal was opened as a result of the Authority’s lack of a written response, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed.