Laura H. Ortiz v. Dracut, Town of (SPR 20210523)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 5, 2021 SPR21/0523 Peter Bartlett Chief of Police Town of Dracut, Police Department 110 Loon Hill Road Dracut, MA 01826 Dear Chief Bartlett, I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Dracut (Town) requesting an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On February 19, 2021, Laura Ortiz requested:  Dracut Police Department records any/all responsive to [an identified individual], for July 1 2019 - July 21, 2019 (regardless the location they exist in or device/other located on and regardless the format)  Dracut Police Department logs, emails, texts, notes, other any/all responsive and to/from [an identified individual], for July 1, 2019 - July 21, 2019 regardless if you name him or refer to him in any way (regardless the location they exist in or device/other located on and regardless the format)  Dracut Police Department as well as Dracut Fire Department records of policies for 911 calls, policies for recording information, policies for creating records in regards to 911 calls, policies for standard procedure for how a Trinity Ambulance is requested etc in regards to anyone calling 911 from start of incident to completion of governmental services (regardless the location they exist in or device/other located on and regardless the format)  Dracut Police Department conjoined Dracut Fire Department Records any/all responsive to [an identified individual], for July 1 2019 - July 21, 2019 (regardless the location they exist in or device/other located on and regardless the format). 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

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR21/0523 Page 2 March 5, 2021 Petitions 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). 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). Extension of time to produce responsive records In its March 1, 2021, petition, the Town requests an extension of time beyond the statutory ten day response time. The Town indicates that due to the “expansive breath and scope of this request, it will be necessary for the town to be granted an extension of time…” The Town requests 30 days as a reasonable request to “allow adequate time for record production as well as review time for town counsel.” The Town asserts that the “review and potential redaction…will require the dedication of employee hours to complete.” The Town also indicates that some of these records “may not currently be in electronic form and will have to be scanned.”

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR21/0523 Page 3 March 5, 2021 I find that in light of the need to collect and segregate the request, as well as the potential scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(ii). I hereby grant the Town an extension of 15 business days beyond the time allowed in G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (a municipality may provide a timeframe not to exceed 25 business days to produce responsive records). Please note the time may begin to run once the Town receives payment. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Conclusion Accordingly, I hereby grant the Town an extension of 15 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Ms. Ortiz’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). The Town is advised it must provide the records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. To the extent possible, the Town must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Ms. Ortiz may seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Ortiz