Max Strahan v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20212418)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 5, 2021 SPR21/2418 William Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: I have received the petition of Max Strahan appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 1, 2021, Mr. Strahan requested the following: 1. All records associated with my past Massachusetts driver’s license . . . This includes my official RMV driver’s record from 2014 to the present. 2. The government’s email address and business phone number for [a named individual]. 3. The names and business emails of all attorneys working for the Department of Transportation. 4. The names and business address of all RMV employees supervising the RMV suspension office and/or its merit rating board. 5. All RMV notices sent to me advising me that my right to drive is suspended or will be suspended in the future generated after 2016. 6. All email correspondence between DOT/RMV staff concerning me or mentioning my name generated during or after 2019. The Department provided responses on July 7, 2021, July 16, 2021, and July 23, 2021. Claiming to not have received responsive records, Mr. Strahan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2418, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical 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

William Doyle Esq. SPR21/2418 Page 2 October 5, 2021 form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s July 7th, July 16th, and July 23rd, responses On July 7, 2021, the Department sought clarification regarding the third item of Mr. Strahan’s request as follows: “. . . with regard to the names and business emails of all attorneys working for the Department of Transportation, there are attorneys working in various Districts throughout the Commonwealth, as well as those that work in employment law, litigation, right of way, claims, personnel, etc. Are you looking for those attorneys that work within the RMV, as opposed to those that would have no involvement in RMV matters?” On July 16, 2021, the Department provided records responsive to Items 1, 2, and 5 of Mr. Strahan’s request. On July 23, 2021, the Department further provided records responsive to Items 4 and 6 of Mr. Strahan’s request. In his appeal petition, Mr. Strahan states the following: To this date the [Department] refuses to comply with items #3 and #4. I[t] has failed to supply me any requested records for the attorneys it employees [sic]. It has also failed to supply me the name and contact information for the current director of the RMV suspensions unit. It has refused to fully comply with item #5. I was today told by an RMV employee that the RMV sent me letters dated on 10 April 2018 and in June 2021 ordering to pay fines or face suspension. The DOT has refused to supply me copies of these records. In an email correspondence dated September 21, 2021, the Department reiterated that it has provided Mr. Strahan with records responsive to Items 4 and 5. With respect to Item 3, it is my understanding that Mr. Strahan recently provided clarification regarding this request, and the Department “. . . [is] now in the process of compiling any responsive records for that Request[.]”

William Doyle Esq. SPR21/2418 Page 3 October 5, 2021 In light of the Department’s responses, coupled with Mr. Strahan’s petition for appeal, it is unclear what the basis of Mr. Strahan’s appeal is. Mr. Strahan is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requester’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, Mr. Strahan may wish to clarify his specific objections to the Department’s response. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Max Strahan