Eric Hawkins v. Boston, City of - Law Department (SPR 20201426)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 27, 2020 SPR20/1426 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Boston (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, it is my understanding that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. In a letter dated August 5, 2020, Attorney Eric L. Hawkins of WilmerHale requested various categories of records concerning the City of Boston and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Petition 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR20/1426 Page 2 August 27, 2020 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). 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. 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 A municipality 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR20/1426 Page 3 August 27, 2020 public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Petitions relating to fees must be submitted to the Supervisor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Current Petition In its August 19, 2020, petition, the City requests “the Supervisor to grant the City of Boston’s petitions for additional time and fees with respect to [the] request for public records.” The City notes, “[w]hile the hourly rates of department personnel required to review the responsive records will likely exceed the $25.00 hourly rate, I do not petition the Supervisor here for an hourly rate that is in excess of $25.00 per hour.” The City indicates, “[r]esponsive records are likely to contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy… Responsive records are likely to contain information that is exempt by statute. In particular, the responsive records likely contain allegations of sexual assault or domestic violence. Such information is exempt from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(a); G. L. c. 41, § 97D.” Further, the City states Responsive records are likely to contain attorney-client privileged communications.Suffolk Const. Co., Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset Management, 449 Mass. 444 (2007).” Although the City expressed “[r]esponsive records are likely to contain intimate details of a highly personal nature,” it has not provided information regarding what records it intends to produce and why such records are likely to contain privileged information. Conclusion I find that in light of the lack of explanation in the City’s petition, the City has not established good cause to warrant an extension of additional time to respond to this request. With respect to the City’s petition to assess fees, I find the City has not met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR20/1426 Page 4 August 27, 2020 Please note, however, this does not preclude the City from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the City is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary and how the redactions are required by law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The City must provide a response to Attorney Hawkins within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Attorney Hawkins may appeal the City’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Daniel W. Halston, Esq. Jason Liss, Esq.