Catherine Christina v. Division of Occupational Licensure (SPR 20222967)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 9, 2023 SPR22/2967 Jessica L. Ellis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Division of Occupational Licensure 1000 Washington Street, Suite 710 Boston, MA 02118 Dear Attorney Ellis: I have received your petition on behalf of the Division of Occupational Licensure (Division) seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records requested by Catherine and Bill Christina. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the Division furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On December 15, 2022, Catherine and Bill Christina requested email attachments that have not been provided, records regarding an identified meeting, records regarding Signature and PFS’s required responses to Assistant Chief Walsh’s directive, and records regarding an identified inspection report. 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 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

Jessica L. Ellis, Esq. SPR22/2967 Page 2 January 9, 2023 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). 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 petition dated December 30, 2022, the Division asserts: The Duplicative Request is the latest in a series of frivolous requests the Christina’s have submitted to the Division insisting that the Division has in its possession or custody certain documents when the Division already has made [a] diligent search and informed the Christina’s that it does not have any additional records sought, aside from those already provided…. On May 10th, 2022, the Christina’s submitted a correspondence to General Counsel Clinton Dick, claiming not all records requested from the Original Request had been provided. Attorney Dick responded that [the Division] would once again conduct a search for responsive records, and provided those to the Christinas in early August, 2022. On August 12, 2022, Attorney Dick received an email from the Christina’s making a variety of baseless statements related to the Division’s most recent response and asserting yet again certain responsive records were not provided. The Division provided yet another response to the Christinas on November 3, 2022, after again making a diligent search for the records requested. In this follow-up response, the Division affirmed that its staff made a diligent search for records responsive to the requests, including Original Records Request, and found only those records that were previously provided. In coordinating our responses in August and on November 3, 2022, staff reviewed thousands of pages of records to confirm, yet again, that the Division did in fact provide all records responsive to the request within the Division’s custody. On December 15, 2022, the Division received the Duplicative Request, which yet again alleges that the Division has not fulfilled the Original Records Request nor provided satisfactory response to other email correspondence. Yet again, the

Jessica L. Ellis, Esq. SPR22/2967 Page 3 January 9, 2023 premise [of] the Duplicative Request is that the Division has in its custody undisclosed records responsive to the Original Records Request, specifically documents relating to certain meetings or inspections that occurred at the property, or otherwise relating to the condition of property at [an identified address]…. In this case, the Division’s staff have dedicated countless hours and scarce resources responding to the Christina’s continued requests for records previously provided. The Duplicative Request can only be categorized as one in a series of related requests that are frivolous and intended solely to harass employees of the Division. Accordingly, the Division respectfully requests that you relieve the Division of its obligation to respond to the Duplicative Request or provide any further responses to the Christinas related to this matter. Based on the information provided in the December 30th petition, I find that the Division has not demonstrated the request is 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 Division’s petition seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records at this time. Please note, this office may deny an appeal if, in the opinion of the Supervisor of Records, the request is designed or intended to harass, intimidate, or assist in the commission of a crime. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(2). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Catherine and Bill Christina