Brian McCarter v. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (SPR 20241585)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 31, 2024 SPR24/1585 Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. General Counsel Massachusetts Technology Collaborative 75 North Drive Westborough, MA 01581 Dear Attorney Saubermann: On May 24, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (Collaborative) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Collaborative furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Brian McCarter. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 12, 2024, Mr. McCarter requested, “all emails related to the Bead Challenge Process in the last six months.” Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. 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

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR24/1585 Page 2 May 31, 2024 G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its petition, the Collaborative requests an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested records in the amount of 20 business days.” In support of its request, the Collaborative provides the following information: [The Collaborative]’s IT staff conducted a search of emails to identify potentially responsive records to Mr. McCarter’s request. That process began on May 14, 2024, and was completed on May 23, 2024. That search returned 3,008 emails, which are saved as PDF documents totaling 10,241 pages. We reached out to the requestor on May 21, 2024, to help refine and/or narrow the request, but the requestor has not responded. This is also the tenth public records request from the requestor in the last seven months. We have responded to all his requests within the statutory timeframe, and when we were unable to produce records within the statutory timeframe, sought an extension from the requestor. Each email downloaded by our IT staff will require a manual review to determine whether it is responsive to the request, as our search function often returns emails that are not relevant, and emails may contain information that is exempt from disclosure or subject to being withheld pursuant to attorney client privilege. [The Collaborative] has an obligation to ensure that proper procedures are maintained to prevent the dissemination of information which is protected from disclosure by law. This requires careful review and segregation of records before they are produced to a requestor. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, as well as efforts undertaken by the Collaborative in fulfilling the current request and previous requests, and the capacity of the Collaborative to produce the records without an extension, the Collaborative has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Collaborative is granted an extension of 20 business days.

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR24/1585 Page 3 May 31, 2024 Conclusion As described above, I find that the Collaborative has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days. Please note, Mr. McCarter has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter