Gregor A. Pagnini v. Norfolk County Commissioners (SPR 20222445)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 2, 2022 SPR22/2445 William J. Buckley, Jr. Records Access Officer County of Norfolk 614 High Street, P. O. Box 310 Dedham, MA 02027 Dear Mr. Buckley: I have received your petition on behalf of the Norfolk County Commissioners, Norfolk County Advisory Board, and the Norfolk County Advisory Board Finance Committee (County) seeking an extension of time to produce records, and relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the County furnished a copy of this petition to the requestors. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). In three letters dated September 21, 2022, and received by the County on September 27, 2022, Attorneys Gregor A. Pagnini and Francesca M. Papia, of Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, (requestors) requested fourteen categories of records. 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 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 J. Buckley, Jr. SPR22/2445 Page 2 November 2, 2022 (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its October 26th petition, the County requests that “if the County is not relieved of its obligation to provide the requested records, the County requests in the alternative that it be granted 1 year from the date of payment of the fee estimate to provide the requested records.” In support of its request, the County argues the following: The incredibly broad nature of these requests suggests that there is no particular information being sought, but instead that the request is intended to place the maximum burden possible on the County. Of particular note are the eleventh and twelfth items in the request which seek to have the County search for, locate and provide any and all documents or communications relating to the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds and any and all documents or communications relating to the Register of Deeds. . . . [T]he County notes that its initial response contained an estimate of 1,705 hours to fully respond to these requests, the reasons for which are explained therein. For a single employee dedicated full-time to complete this process, working 8-hour days every day, it would take just over 213 business days-approximately 43 weeks, amounting to nearly a full work year without time off-to provide all of the requested documents. Additionally, the County’s October 12, 2022 response, included with its petition, indicates that the County’s preliminary search has located approximately 63,951 emails, and estimates at least 3,000 pages of other electronic records, and at least 4,000 pages of hard-copy records that would be potentially responsive to the request. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the County to produce the request without an extension, and efforts undertaken by the County in fulfilling the current request, the County has established good cause to permit an

William J. Buckley, Jr. SPR22/2445 Page 3 November 2, 2022 extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The County is granted an extension of 30 business days. Request for Relief In its petition, “the County asserts that these 14 requests are a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass the County, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity.” In support of its request for relief, the County argues the following: This series of requests is apparently made in relation to litigation the requesters’ law firm, Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, has filed on behalf of Norfolk County Register of Deeds William O’Donnell (the “Register”) against the Norfolk County Commissioners. This action is currently pending in Norfolk County Superior Court, . . . and involves various claims by the Register that essentially amount to a political dispute regarding the relative authorities of the Register and the County Commissioners to hire County employees. . . . It should also be noted that as Register of Deeds, Register O’Donnell is an elected official in Norfolk County, and the Register already has access to a substantial number of the requested records. In particular, the Register may search all of his own emails for relevant records, as well as those of other Registry employees, and these are likely to contain the majority of responsive records. Based on the information provided in the County’s petition, I find that the County 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 Accordingly, I find the County has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Please note, the requestors have 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(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c).

William J. Buckley, Jr. SPR22/2445 Page 4 November 2, 2022 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gregor A. Pagnini, Esq. Francesca M. Papia, Esq.