Todd Feathers v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20231480)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 12, 2023 SPR23/1480 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records Records Access Officer City of Boston 1 City Hall Plaza, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Todd Feathers 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 May 13, 2022, Mr. Feathers requested: [1] All emails exchanges-including incoming messages, outgoing messages, forwards, and attachments-between the department’s chief/commissioner and ShotSpotter representatives since January 1, 2021. ShotSpotter representatives can be identified by searching the department’s email system for addresses ending in “@shotspotter.com.” [2] All emails exchanges-including incoming messages, outgoing messages, forwards, and attachments-between the department’s public information and/or media relations staff members and ShotSpotter representatives since January 1, 2021. ShotSpotter representatives can be identified by searching the department’s email system for addresses ending in “@shotspotter.com.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1090 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 7, 2023). In my June 7th determination, I ordered the City to provide Mr. Feathers with a response to his request. On June 20, 2023, the City responded. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Feathers petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1480, was opened as a result. 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. SPR23/1480 Page 2 July 12, 2023 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. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s June 20th Response In its June 20, 2023 response, the City states, “[a]fter reviewing the Supervisor’s letter it is unclear how BPD could process your query as a public records request. Please review your request and file a new request seeking specific records.” Reasonable Description of Records Sought A request for records must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” In this case, Mr. Feathers has provided specific descriptions of the emails he is seeking, including a date range and the categories of senders and recipients. While his request may result in a large volume of responsive records, he has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents he is seeking. To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/1480 Page 3 July 12, 2023 This office continues to encourage Mr. Feathers and the City to continue communicating to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Feathers with a response to his 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Feathers