← Back to Search
Wayne Willis v. Department of Developmental Services (SPR 20210412)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Administratively closed · Filed 02-18-2021
ClosedAppealResolved
SPR 20210412 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Wayne Willis concerning records held by Department of Developmental Services, opened 02-18-2021. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Administratively closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20210412
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Wayne Willis
- Custodian
- Department of Developmental Services
- Date Opened
- 02-18-2021
- Date Closed
- 03-04-2021
- Date Request Submitted
- 02-02-2021
- Response Provided Date
- 02-17-2021
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 4, 2021 SPR21/0412 Erin G. Brown, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Executive Office of Health & Human Services Department of Developmental Services 1000 Washington Street Boston, MA 02118 Dear Attorney Brown: I have received the petition of Wayne Willis appealing the response of the Department of Developmental Services (Department) to his request. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on February 2, 2021, Mr. Willis asserted: “[p]lease consider the following two questions as Public Records Requests for all information, in any form, about [an identified person]: 1. Did you make a personal discovery, or, from whom, and/or from where, did you get the idea that there is personal litigation of any kind by [an identified person], or [an identified person], and (a) [p]lease send me a copy of all email, and other documents, computer records and notes, in your possession that you sent or received relative to all matters concerning [the identified persons] from 1/05/2021 to 2/2/2021; 2. Did you receive any information, or instructions, from anyone in the General Counsel’s office about how to response to any requests, or any kind from [an identified person], and (a) [p]lease send me all email that you sent, copied to, or received from any government employee, relative to all matters regarding, [an identified person], or [an identified person], or [an identified person] from 1/05/2021 to 2/2/2021.” In a February 17, 2021 response to Mr. Willis’ February 2nd request, the Department responded that Mr. Willis clarified his public records request, specifically, “[p]lease send me a copy of all email, and other documents, computer records and notes, in your possession that you sent or received relative to all matters concerning [an identified person], or [an identified person] from January 5, 2021 to February 2, 2021.” A review of the communications provided to this office relative to the February 2nd request and February 12th clarification request, reveals that on 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 Erin G. Brown, Esq. SPR21/0412 Page 2 March 4, 2021 February 17, 2021, the Department provided a cover letter, an Excel spreadsheet containing a privilege log for records withheld under the attorney-client privilege, and a zip file of responsive documents regarding Mr. Willis’ February 2nd and February 12th revised/clarified request for documents. Unsatisfied with the response, on February 18, 2021, Mr. Willis petitioned the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor), and this appeal, SPR21/0412, was opened. In his petition, Mr. Willis asserts, “[n]either of the two questions were answered.” Questions versus document requests Mr. Willis is advised that under the Public Records Law, a records custodian is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. The duty to comply with requests for information extends only to those records that exist and are in the custody of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26); see also 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Conclusion Accordingly, whereas Mr. Willis has been provided with records responsive to his requests and the Department has no duty to answer Mr. Willis’s questions under the Public Records Law, I will consider this appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Wayne Willis