Michelle Efendi v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20240102)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 26, 2024 SPR24/0102 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 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 September 8, 2023, Ms. Efendi requested “... all records concerning the list of names as described in this attached June 10, 2022 email from [a named individual] to [a named individual]. 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.” Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/2143 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 22, 2023). In the September 22nd determination, I encouraged the City and Ms. Efendi to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently. On January 5, 2024, Ms. Efendi re-submitted her request to the City. The City provided a response on January 10, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Efendi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0102, 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. SPR24/0102 Page 2 January 26, 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. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Efendi states that she “had received a favorable appeal from the Secretary of State, but the City of Boson disagrees with the Secretary’s ruling.” Ms. Efendi further states that the City “continue[s] to claim that [her] public record’s [sic] request was too broad and vague.” The City’s January 10th response In its January 10, 2024 response, the City reiterates that the “…request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. . . .” Reasonable description of records sought Please be aware that the request 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. l 784CV02087, 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.” (emphasis in original). Id. As stated in the September 22nd determination, Ms. Efendi has provided descriptions of the categories of records she is seeking, such as “. . . electronic communications (example, text messages, emails, phone call logs), internal reports, police reports, meeting notes and documents” concerning a June 10th email sent between two identified individuals. As such, I find that she has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents she is seeking. Consequently, the City must confirm whether it possesses records responsive to the request. 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, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/0102 Page 3 January 26, 2024 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). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Efendi with a response to her 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: Michelle Efendi