Sean Murphy v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20232868)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 12, 2023 SPR23/2868 Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Records Access Officer Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 I have received the petition of Sean P. Murphy, on behalf of Laura Crimaldi, both of the Boston Globe, appealing the nonresponse of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 6, 2023, Ms. Crimaldi requested: [D]ata, preferably in .CSV format, of track inspections conducted pursuant to 220 CMR Section 151.22 from the beginning of revenue service through the most recent date available on the day the data is exported of the Union Square and Medford branches of the Green Line Extension, including fields as specified in 220 CMR Section 151.00(5)(d): [1.] The track or rail inspected; [2.] The date of the inspection; [3.] Location of any deviation; [4.] Nature of any deviation from the established track standards; [5.] Remedial action taken by the person making the inspection. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/2541 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 6, 2023). The MBTA responded on November 9, 2023. Unsatisfied with the MBTA’s response, Ms. Crimaldi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2868, 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 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

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR23/2868 Page 2 December 12, 2023 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. 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 MBTA’s November 9th response In its November 9, 2023 response, the MBTA claimed Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Exemption (d) Exemption (d) allows the withholding of: inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this subclause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). Exemption (d) is intended to avoid premature release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if disclosed. Its application is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. See Babets v. Sec’y of the Exec. Office of Human Servs., 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). Factual reports which are reasonably complete and inferences which can be drawn from factual investigations, even if labeled as opinions or conclusions, are not exempt as deliberative or policy making materials. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see also Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89 (1973) (purely factual matters used in the development of government policy are subject to disclosure). Under Exemption (d), the MBTA stated, “... [t]he track inspection records contain information that is part of an ongoing deliberation between the MBTA and its contractor, GLX Constructors (‘GLXC’). The track inspection records must be withheld in order to safeguard the MBTA’s ability to continue to develop its policy positions during this ongoing deliberative process and develop an optimal work plan with GLXC.” Based on the MBTA’s response, I find it has not met its burden of specificity to withhold the records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (d). The MBTA is advised that any

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR23/2868 Page 3 December 12, 2023 information contained in these records that is factual in nature may be subject to disclosure as Exemption (d) does not apply to such information. Consequently, the MBTA must clarify whether the records contain any factual information that can be segregated. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § l0(a); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-290 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Further, I find the MBTA has not established how the records at issue are “inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters” as required by Exemption (d). See DOI v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 4 (2001) (indicating that a requirement for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption 5 to apply is “its source must be a Government agency”); Cty. of Madison v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 641 F.2d 1036, 1040 (1st Cir. 1981) (finding that documents from a private party are not “intra-agency” under FOIA exemption 5); SPR95/336 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (August 14, 1995; August 31, 1995) (finding that Exemption (d) does not protect materials submitted to an agency by third parties and only applies to governmental agencies or consultants). It is additionally uncertain what deliberative process remains ongoing and how disclosure of the records would taint the ongoing deliberative process. The MBTA must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the MBTA is ordered to provide Mr. Murphy with a response to his request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 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. Mr. Murphy may appeal the substantive nature of the MBTA’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sean P. Murphy Laura Crimaldi