Michelle Efendi v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20240093)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 24, 2024 SPR24/0093 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 Michelle Efendi, appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 8, 2023, Ms. Efendi requested, “... all records concerning protests at [a named individual]’s house and/or on [a specified location]. Records should include, but not limited to all written and electronic communications (example, text messages, emails, phone call logs), internal reports, police reports[,] meeting notes and documents. This request should not be limited to only formal police reports.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/2149 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 21, 2023). In my December 21st determination, I found that it was unclear if the Department possesses any records responsive to the request. The Department responded on January 10, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Efendi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0093, 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). 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. SPR24/0093 Page 2 January 24, 2024 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 Department’s January 10th Response In its January 10, 2024 response, the Department stated, “[Ms. Efendi’s] request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law 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).” Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Efendi states, “the City of Boston continues to insist that my records request is too broad and vague… The City is refusing to provide me with public 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.” The Department is further advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In this case, Ms. Efendi has provided descriptions of the categories of records she is seeking, including, among other things, the specific subject matter and the specific types of records. While her request may potentially result in a large volume of responsive records, she has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents she is seeking.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/0093 Page 3 January 24, 2024 As a result, I find the Department must confirm whether it possesses records responsive to the request. This office continues to encourage the parties to communicate 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Efendi with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of the 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. Ms. Efendi may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michelle Efendi