Stephen Voltz v. Gloucester, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20210597)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 18, 2021 SPR21/0597 Charles J. Payson, Esq. City of Gloucester, Legal Department City Hall 9 Dale Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Dear Attorney Payson: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Gloucester (City) 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 City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On February 11, 2021, Stephen Voltz requested six categories of records, including “[a]ll documents relating to the internal investigation referenced by Gloucester Mayor Sefatia Romeo Theken on September 13, 2016…” 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. 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

Charles J. Payson, Esq. SPR21/0597 Page 2 March 18, 2021 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 its March 11, 2021 petition, the City “requests an extension of 30 business days to respond to this request.” The City indicates its “IT Department has conducted a search of emails referencing [an identified individual] from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 pursuant to the request. There are 26,315 emails.” The City indicates “[e]ach email will then need to be redacted if any lawful exemptions apply.” The City explains, “there is no easy way to search for emails which are specifically responsive to this request that ‘relate to the internal investigation’… [t]herefore, each email referencing [an identified individual] for that time period will need to be reviewed to determine whether it is relevant to this request.” The City indicates it “also has approximately 160 scanned documents that may ‘relate to’ the internal investigation of [an identified individual]. It is nearly impossible to determine which responsive documents are relevant to the request and which will need to be segregated or redacted without reviewing them first.” The City cites attorney-client privilege, G. L. c. 41 § 97D, as well as Exemptions (c) and (f) as potentially “applicable to the information requested in Item 6 of Mr. Voltz’s request.” The City notes, “[t]hese documents will need to be reviewed by the City’s General Counsel because of the sensitive nature of the documents at issue.” I find that in light of the volume of responsive records, the need to search for and segregate the request, as well as the potential scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(ii). I hereby grant the City an extension of 30 business days beyond the time allowed in G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above.

Charles J. Payson, Esq. SPR21/0597 Page 3 March 18, 2021 Please note, Mr. Voltz 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: Stephen Voltz