Stevan Johnson v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20222742)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 13, 2022 SPR22/2742 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records Record Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Stevan Johnson appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 14, 2022, Mr. Johnson requested: [1] a written response to this November 14, 2022 Public Records Request in accordance with 950 CMR 32.08(1); and [2] A copy of the specific “protective order” cited by [an identified individual] in the January 31, 2020 written response to the Public Records Request dated January 4, 2020 that was given Reference Number: B000017-010420 for tracking purposes. On November 14, 2022, the City responded. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Johnson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/2742, 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 form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality 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. 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR22/2742 Page 2 December 13, 2022 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. The City’s November 22nd Response In its November 22, 2022 response, the City states that, “[i]nformation such as this is available from the PACER website, maintained by the federal government: https://pacer.uscourts.gov/[.]” Based on the City’s response, it is unclear if the City possesses records responsive to the original request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). To the extent that records exist, I find the City must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Johnson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stevan Johnson