Ed Mumson v. Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (SPR 20211853)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 28, 2021 SPR21/1853 Allyson M. Huntington Massachusetts Life Sciences Center 1075 Main Street, Suite 100 Waltham, MA 02451 Dear Ms. Huntington: On July 27, 2021, I received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (Center) seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Center furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Ed Musmon. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On July 19, 2021, Mr. Musmon requested “…all the final loan modification agreements/amendments that encompassed modification of the financial terms and maturity date of the loans that went beyond the initial 5- year term.” 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

Allyson M. Huntington. SPR21/1853 Page 2 July 28, 2021 Fee Estimate An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 CMR 32.06(4). Current Petition In its July 27th petition, the Center seeks “…an extension of time to produce public records and approval to assess a good faith fee estimated at $425.00 for costs associated with responding to a public records request from Ed Musmon.” The Center notes it “…has conducted a search of 32 responsive awardee files and reviewed over 1,000 individual records each varying in size from 2 to 200 pages of which 30 individual records are potentially responsive documents.” The Center cites Exemption (c) stating, “…[r]esponsive records contain social security numbers, home addresses, and bank account information that are exempt pursuant to the second (privacy) clause of G. L. c. 4, §7(26)(c), because its disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy not outweighed by the public’s interest in disclosure of the material.” Further, the Center posits that the “[r]esponsive Records contain commercial or financial information regarding the operation of any business conducted by an applicant for any form of assistance which the center is empowered to render or regarding the competitive position of such applicant in a particular field of endeavor, and are exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c. 23I, §3(l).” The Center contends that “[t]he cost is necessary, reasonable and is not designed to limit, deter, or prevent access to requested public records. Considering the number of files that must be searched and the complexity of the documents that must be reviewed, MLSC further seeks approval of an extension of time to provide the documents once payment is received. If approved, MLSC requests an additional ten business days once payment is received.”

Allyson M. Huntington. SPR21/1853 Page 3 July 28, 2021 Conclusion I find that in light of the volume of responsive records the Center has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the Center an extension of 10 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Mr. Musmon’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). With respect to the Center’s petition to assess fees, I find the Center has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Center may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, this office encourages Mr. Musmon and the Center to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, §10(b)(vii). Please note, Mr. Musmon 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: Ed Musmon