Joshua F. Grammel v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20201245)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 30, 2020 SPR20/1245 William J. Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: I have received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Department) requesting permission for a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to a request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In a letter dated July 24, 2020, Joshua Grammel requested six categories of records concerning “motor vehicle citations issued by Massachusetts State Police.” Petition to Assess Fees A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. 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

William J. Doyle, Esq. SPR20/1245 Page 2 July 30, 2020 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its July 24, 2020, petition, the Department states, “due to the substance of the request, we believe that many, if not all, of the responsive records for Paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 6 will require redaction of records that are ‘specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute’ pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(a). Therefore, MassDOT seeks the Supervisor’s permission to charge the requester for time spent segregating and redacting records that are responsive to the request.” The Department notes that “the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S. Code § 2721) states, in part,‘[a] State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor thereof, shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity...personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(3), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record…’ Personal information includes information that identifies an individual, including an individual’s photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information.”

William J. Doyle, Esq. SPR20/1245 Page 3 July 30, 2020 The Department posits “[c]harging a fee in this matter is necessary because this request cannot be prudently completed without redacting information under these applicable exemptions. The fee is reasonable as it relates to a specific redaction, and the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to public records; rather, it is meant to protect MassDOT from inadvertently revealing confidential personal information. Releasing the requested records without redaction would impede MassDOT’s obligations under Federal and State law, as well as jeopardize the safety, security and privacy of the Commonwealth’s residents and visitors.” I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10( d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, it is my determination that given the nature of the requested records and the explanation in its petition, the Department is permitted to charge for time spent segregating and redacting the requested records. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records the Department is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor detailing why this amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Department must also provide the hourly rate being used and explain why it is that of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skill. The Department shall provide a response to Mr. Grammel within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Mr. Grammel may appeal the Department’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note the requestor has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(4), l0A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Joshua Grammel