Melissa Hanson v. Worcester City Solicitor's Office (SPR 20201166)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 21, 2020 SPR20/1166 Janice E. Thompson Assistant City Solicitor City of Worcester Law Department 455 Main Street, Rm. 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Thompson: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester (City) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Specifically, on June 12, 2020, Melissa Hanson of MassLive requested five categories of records pertaining to use of force documents, as well as “complaints alleging police misconduct from June 1, 2019, to today’s date.” 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). 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

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR20/1166 Page 2 July 21, 2020 The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requester within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current petition In its petition dated July 13, 2020, the City requests “the Supervisor…grant the City of Worcester’s petition for additional time with respect to Melissa Hanson’s request for public records.” The City indicates it “has initially identified approximately 745 pages of records responsive to Parts 1 and 2 of the request.” The City explains “[u]se of Force reports are embedded in incident reports and arrest reports; therefore each of these records must be reviewed prior to disclosure as the records contain information exempt from disclosure including but not limited to arrestee social security number and driver’s license information, exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a) and (c), victim and witness names and personally identifying information exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a) (c) and (f); medical information exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (c); and information related to a reports of domestic violence or sexual assault which the City is prohibited from disclosing pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a) through M.G.L. c. 41 § 97D.” The City further explains “…these reports include both forms and accompanying narratives which must be read and reviewed to make determinations regarding exempt content and perform redactions.” The City states it “has identified approximately 39 pages of records responsive to Part 4 of the request. A majority of these records consist of the same types of reports described above, and contain information that is exempt. These records require the same review as described above prior to disclosure.” The City also indicates “[r]ecords responsive to Part 5 of the request are not maintained electronically; in order to fulfill the request it was necessary to locate each paper file. The City has now located approximately 42 files which may be responsive.” The City explains “[t]hese files contain information exempt from disclosure and subject to redaction, including but not limited to names and personally identifying information of complainants and witnesses, names and personally identifying information of confidential informants exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (f); home addresses of government employees/law enforcement exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a) through M.G.L. c. 66 §10B; and intimate details of a highly personal nature, the disclosure of which would cause embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, the release of which does not serve a compelling public interest, exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (c).” The City further explains “[p]articularly with respect to complainants and witnesses…the work necessary to protect the identities of these individuals is time-consuming and burdensome. On average it takes one hour per file to complete review and redaction of the files associated with Part 5 of this request.”

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR20/1166 Page 3 July 21, 2020 The City also explains “it is beyond the capabilities and resources of the City to assign an employee to work full-time on a single public records request. This would place an undue burden on the City and divert resources away from other essential municipal functions, including but not limited to the fulfillment of other public records requests. Accordingly, it is necessary for the City to seek an extension of time to fulfill Ms. Hanson’s request.” I find that in light of the need to segregate and redact the requested records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, as well as the capacity of the City to produce the request without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time of 20 business days. G. L. c. 66 § 10(c)(i)-(iv). Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the City is granted an extension of 20 business days to produce responsive records. The records must be provided consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the City’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, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Melissa Hanson