Joseph A. Padolsky v. Middlesex County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20201862)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 7, 2020 SPR20/1862 Attorney Howard P. Blatchford, Jr. Assistant District Attorney Middlesex District Attorney’s Office Appeals & Training Bureau 15 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801 Dear Attorney Blatchford: I have received your petition on behalf of the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office (Office) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Office furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. In a letter dated September 15, 2020, Attorney Joseph A. Padolsky requested “[a]ny and all communications between the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office, inclusive of any employees or agents thereof, and Attorney Leo Peloquin or members or employees of Norris, Murray & Peloquin, LLC from September 1, 2016 to the current date.” 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. 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

Howard P. Blatchford, Jr., Esq. SPR20/1862 Page 2 October 7, 2020 G. L. c. 66, § 10(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 a letter to this office dated September 30, 2020, the Office petitions the Supervisor of Records “for an extension of time of an additional ten business days, through and including October 14, 2020, to provide records in response to the above-captioned public records request.” The Office notes “[t]he undersigned Assistant Distant Attorney is the person most familiar with this matter...Since September 18, 2020, the undersigned Assistant District Attorney has been suffering from a medical condition. On September 28 he was informed, after examinations and testing over the weekend, that the condition is potentially serious. Additional testing and consultations with medical specialists began on September 29 and are scheduled to continue later this week and into next week. For these reasons, the assembly of records in response to this request has been delayed.” The office states, “[b]ecause the request spans a four-year period, and because the agency employee most familiar with this matter has been unable to devote his full attention to the preparation of the response, it is submitted that good cause exists to grant an extension of an additional ten business days, through and including October 14, 2020, to provide records in response to the request.” Conclusion I find the Office has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the Office an extension of 10 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Attorney Padolsky’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). To the extent possible, the Office must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records the Office is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor detailing why the amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Office must also provide the hourly rate being used and explain why it is that of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skill. The Office must provide a response to Attorney Padolsky

Howard P. Blatchford, Jr., Esq. SPR20/1862 Page 3 October 7, 2020 within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Attorney Padolsky may appeal the Office’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Attorney Padolsky 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), 10A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph A. Padolsky, Esq.