Oralia Zamarripa v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (SPR 20201998)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 21, 2020 SPR20/1998 Theresa A. Lepore Records Access Officer Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination One Ashburton Place 6th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Theresa A. Lepore: I have received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (Commission) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Commission furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. In a letter dated October 2, 2020, Oralia Zamarripa requested “all housing discrimination predetermination settlement agreements reached by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination between the dates 01/01/2011 and 01/01/2020.” 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

Theresa A. Lepore SPR20/1998 Page 2 October 21, 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). Current Petition In a letter to this office dated October 16, 2020, the Commission seeks “a 30 day extension of time within which to produce the documents sought.” The Commission notes its “initial search produced 590 documents of varying page size. In a good faith effort to respond within the time allowed by G.L. c. 66, § 10 (b), on October 9, 2020, I emailed the requestor suggesting assistance in modifying or narrowing their request due to the volume of documents initially discovered. On October 13, 2020, I received a response from the requestor that she was not willing to modify her request.” The Commission adds, “given the voluminous nature of her request and given the fact that because our staff is telecommuting, access to Commission files is slower than if staff was in the office on a regular basis...There are 590 cases from which to segregate the settlement agreements, I have allowed 10 minutes for the review and segregation of each file. I have multiplied 590 files by 10 minutes, divided that number by 60 to get the estimated hours to complete the production. Four hours of time has been deducted pursuant to G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii) and 94 hours remain. This breakdown is also articulated in the attached good faith cost estimate.” The Commission posits “[t]he extension of time is necessary to search and segregate all settlement agreements from the 590 case files. More than likely, there will be little to no redactions necessary on any of the settlement agreements, however, the review of each document will determine if redactions are necessary. Further, given the Governor’s State of Emergency and the Covid-19 pandemic, our staff is telecommuting and access to MCAD case files is limited and slower than usual. For these reasons I am seeking a 30 day extension of time within which to produce the documents sought.” Conclusion I find the Commission has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the Commission an extension of 20 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Ms. Zamarripa’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (the Supervisor may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days). To the extent possible, the Commission must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Theresa A. Lepore SPR20/1998 Page 3 October 21, 2020 When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records the Commission 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 Commission must also provide the hourly rate being used and explain why it is that of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skill. Ms. Zamarripa may appeal the Commission's fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Oralia Zamarripa