Arielle Sharma v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20210391)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records February 22, 2021 SPR21/0391 Janice E. Thompson, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 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 produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, it is my understanding that the City furnished a copy of its petition to the requestor. Id. In a letter dated January 19, 2021, Attorney Arielle Sharma of Lawyers for Civil Rights requested: “1. All contracts or memorandum of agreements indicating or referencing police details at Plumley Village. 2. All communications between WPD and Plumley Village indicating or referencing police details and/or monitoring of Plumley Village, including but not limited to communications such as emails, letters, and/or records of phone calls or texts. 3. All police incident reports indicating or referencing interactions at or police responses to Plumley Village that were not connected to 911 calls since January 1, 2019 to present. 4. All records indicating or referencing the officers assigned to patrol the area that includes Plumley Village since January 1, 2019. 5. All records indicating or referencing requests from Plumley Village to WPD regarding time, manner, or method of policing or police activities on and around that property. 6. All records indicating or referencing WPD rules, policies, guidance, written directives, and/or training documents regarding details, private retention of police officers and/or overtime privately hired details. 7. All records indicating or referencing WPD access to surveillance cameras or other security devices at Plumley Village. 8. All records indicating or referencing any payments or donations made by Plumley Village to WPD.” 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. SPR21/0391 Page 2 February 22, 2021 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). Current Petition In its response dated February 2, 2021, the City provided Attorney Sharma records responsive to part 6 of the request. Additionally, the City states it “... is in the process of locating the responsive records and at this time requires an additional 15 business days as provided by statute ... Due to the nature of the requested records, these records are likely to contain information which the City is prohibited by law from disclosing. The City is willing to waive fees associated with fulfilling your request, but requests your cooperation in narrowing the scope of this portion of your request.” In its petition, dated February 17, 2021, the City “... respectfully request that the Supervisor grant the City of Worcester an extension of 10 business days to produce records responsive to Atty. Sharma’s request for public records.” The City writes, “[w]ith respect to Part 3 of the request, the City has identified the responsive incident reports. Each of the responsive 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 explains, “[t]he WPD Lieutenant assigned to review these records continues to

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR21/0391 Page 3 February 22, 2021 perform essential law enforcement functions and will require additional time in order to complete the tasks associated with this portion of the request. The City is acting in good faith to complete the tasks associated with responding to this request. However it is beyond the capabilities and resources of the City to assign an employee to work full-time on a public records request in lieu of other law enforcement responsibilities.” Further, “[t]his would place an undue burden on the City and divert resources away from other essential functions. Accordingly, it is necessary for the City to seek an extension of time to fulfill Attorney Sharma’s request. The City anticipates that it will not require this extension for all portions of the request, and the City will provide records responsive to other items to Atty. Sharma on a rolling basis.” The City notes, “... although the public records law permits a ‘reasonable fee for the publication of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection’ M.G.L. c. 66 § 10(d), the City declined to petition the Supervisor of Records to assess fees for the search, review and segregation of records responsive to the request, and the City waived the fees associated with statutory redactions. Additionally, please be advised that the City is willing to work with the requester to further modify and narrow the request.” Conclusion I find the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the City an extension of 10 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Attorney Sharma’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Further, this office encourages Attorney Sharma and the City to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Any fee estimate by the City must be in compliance with this determination, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations. Please note, Attorney Sharma 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: Arielle Sharma, Esq. Michael Vigneux, Esq.