Benjamin Abrams v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20220525)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 11, 2022 SPR22/0525 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Cambridge (City) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Benjamin Abrams of DiBella Law Offices. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). In a letter to the City dated February 17, 2022, Mr. Abrams states, “I am trying to get copies of Accident Reports sent to us either weekly or bi-weekly (whatever works for you)...If you could send us anything for the past week (February 7-February 17) it would be very much appreciated.” Petition to Assess Fees 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 (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the 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

Seah Levy SPR22/0525 Page 2 March 11, 2022 fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Current Petition In its March 4, 2022 petition, “[t]he City anticipates that redactions to the requests records will be required under both statutory law and pursuant to the Public Records law. Examples of such redactions include information which is protected under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994; License Information; reporting witness information; personal medical information in instances where accidents involve personal injuries or fatalities; and the home address information of Government Employees when an accident involves a City or State vehicle. It also appears that this request is for the commercial purpose of marketing the services of DiBella Law Offices.” The term “commercial purpose” as used in this section shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Based on the City’s March 4th petition and the correspondence provided, it is my understanding that the request made by Mr. Abrams meets the statutory definition of “commercial purpose” within the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § l0(d)(ix); see also ----- SPR20/2599 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2021). Conclusion Based on the City’s petition and my finding that the requests are for a commercial purpose, I approve the City’s petition to charge fees for segregation and redaction. Mr. Abrams 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).

Seah Levy SPR22/0525 Page 3 March 11, 2022 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Benjamin Abrams