Michelle Efendi v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20241342)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 16, 2024 SPR24/1342 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records City of Boston One City Hall Square, Room 615 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 January 2, 2024, Ms. Efendi requested, “...all records concerning [an identified individual] and Twitter, Facebook and/or LinkedIn ... records including but not limited to those sent or received by him at [an identified email address].” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/0463 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 26, 2024). In my February 26th determination, the City was ordered to provide a response to Ms. Efendi. The City responded on April 30, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Efendi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1342, 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); 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 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. SPR24/1342 Page 2 May 16, 2024 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 April 30th response In its April 30, 2024 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The City stated, “... the City maintains that all records responsive to this request are wholly exempt from disclosure pursuant to the privacy exemption to the public records law. The person identified has a right against unwarranted invasion of privacy. The City maintains that any records responsive to this request would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy if disclosed. Further, the records are not capable of redaction as the identity of the subject is known to you. As such, the records remain exempt from disclosure. The public interest does not outweigh this privacy interest. The records are not available from another public source. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26).” The City further asserted, “[y]our request for ‘all records concerning [a City of Boston employee] and Twitter, Facebook and/or LinkedIn’ yielded nearly 3,000 email records. This 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). You are encouraged to review this request and if you wish to do so file a new, narrowly tailored request. Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019).” Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Efendi states I am appealing this response from the City of Boston. They claim 3,000 emails is too broad and vague. The City of Boston has given me public records responses with thousands of pages before. They are claiming this is too many only to stop me from receiving these results. I want all 3,000 pages. It is the answer to my public records request and they should provide me all. The City of Boston must stop stonewalling. I have been trying to get public records concerning this subject matter for nearly a year. Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1342 Page 3 May 16, 2024 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.” Based on the foregoing, I find it is unclear which specific records Ms. Efendi is requesting from the City. Accordingly, if Ms. Efendi seeks specific records regarding the identified employee, Ms. Efendi may wish to clarify her request in order to reasonably describe the requested records. G. L. c 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michelle Efendi