Craig P. Shibley v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20220540)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 11, 2022 SPR22/0540 Mark Relation, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received your petition on behalf of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (Office) seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records requested by Craig P. Shibley. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the Office furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). In this matter, Mr. Shibley requested various records concerning an identified trooper. Petitions for relief from obligation to provide public records 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR22/0540 Page 2 March 11, 2022 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 4, 2022 petition, the Office states, “[t]his letter concerns Mr. Craig Shibley’s seven public records requests initiated over a period of just six weeks all requesting documents from the same open and ongoing investigation into the homicide of [an identified trooper].” The Office “...considers this series of seven contemporaneous requests to be both ‘frivolous’ and ‘designed to intimidate or harass’ members of this office. G.L. c. 66 § 10 (c)(v); 950 CMR § 32.06 (4)(f). Consequently, [the Office] request that the Supervisor of Records relieve this organization of the burden of providing any further response in connection with these seven requests or subsequent requests for the same materials.” The Office notes, “[w]here these requests call for records that exist, they seek records that Mr. Shibley is aware have been found to be exempt from disclosure in decisions by the Attorney General’s Office on his identical and overlapping requests made for the same documents in the past. Otherwise, they seek records that do not exist…Furthermore, Mr. Shibley’s most recent series of requests were made as a series within a short time frame.” The Office asserts that “[t]his volume of frivolous requests, each containing language that is designed to intimidate or harass individual members of the office, and the significant time that is required to spend reviewing and responding to each one and each frivolous appeal burdens our office and inhibits our duty to assist, respond to, and provide records for all other requestors who have made public records requests since the beginning of this series of frivolous requests on December 27, 2021.” Based on the information provided in the March 4th petition, I find that the Office has not demonstrated the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Conclusion In light of the above, I cannot grant the Office’s petition seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records at this time.

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR22/0540 Page 2 March 11, 2022 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Craig P. Shibley