Good Citizen v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20232134)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 21, 2023 SPR23/2134 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records/Records Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Good Citizen 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 August 9, 2023, the requestor sought “[c]opy of emails sent from and received by [an identified individual] with [specified] keywords . . . from January 29, 2021 to August 9, 2023.” The City responded on September 8, 2023. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2134, 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) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 950 C.M.R. 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). 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 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. SPR23/2134 Page 2 September 21, 2023 custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s September 8th response In its September 8, 2023 response, the City’s asserts, “[y]our request does not comply with the Massachusetts [P]ublic [R]ecords [L]aw and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i).” The City cites, Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087 (January 23, 2019) asserts, “[i]n a recent a Suffolk Superior Court case, the court found that ‘[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 Chawla, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2. Finally, the City states, “[s]hould you seek specific records [the City] encourage[s] you to visit the City’s public records portal.” The City provided Mr. Christian with the link to the public records portal. Communications between the Parties after the Appeal was opened Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the parties exchanged communications regarding the request. In a September 11th email from the requestor to Attorney Williams, the requestor states, “[y]ou’ve been very responsive up until I asked what was overly broad and vague about my request[?] Please advise…” Subsequently, Attorney Williams responded stating, “…[t]he reason I did that is the request you made is overly broad because the words are common words and the time period is broad. If you have a specific record you would like to obtain I ask that you please let me know.” In addition, Attorney Williams indicates, “[t]he results are enormous. Certain words you included are vague and broad. If you simply tell me what you want I will be able to assist you…Please note that every record we retrieve will need to be reviewed and the City receives several thousand requests for records each year…” On September 12, 2023, the City provided a supplemental response. The City states, “[a]t your request I have rerun separate email searches for each term. I would like to avoid a fee estimate to review these records, but as it appears you do not wish to narrow the request, I will reopen it and review it with [the Department] to determine whether a fee estimate is warranted prior to review of the records.” This office encourages the parties to communicate directly 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/2134 Page 3 September 21, 2023 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 the requestor 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Good Citizen