Gregory Kay v. Medfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20241978)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2024 SPR24/1978 Barry R. McGrath Deputy Police Chief Medfield Police Department 93 West Street Medfield, MA 02052 Dear Deputy Chief McGrath: On July 10, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Medfield Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request, 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 the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Greg Kay. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On July 1, 2024, Mr. Kay requested “all incidents reports and log entries and arrest reports for ALL motor vehicle stops by ALL Medfield Police from 04/01/2024 to 07/01/2024.” Petitions 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 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

Barry R. McGrath SPR24/1978 Page 2 July 16, 2024 municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. 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) shall 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its July 10th petition, the Department requests an extension of 20 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The Medfield Police Department is also requesting an extension for time, as the nature and magnitude of the request would require a response that could not prudently be completed without the following… Subsequently, in an email to this office on July 11, 2024, the Department states: In order to accommodate the requestor, our employee must review over 400 pages of incidents, arrests and call ... logs related to motor vehicle stops between the months of April and July. This research will be conducted in addition to the duties and responsibilities our employee must complete on a daily basis. Based on the Department’s petition, I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records and the capacity of the Department to produce the request without the extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Department is granted an extension of 20 business days for the pending request. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Barry R. McGrath SPR24/1978 Page 3 July 16, 2024 In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department requests to “to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f). In support of its request, the Department provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions:

Barry R. McGrath SPR24/1978 Page 4 July 16, 2024 Exemption (c): social security number(s), medical information, juvenile information, witness information, license number(s), and telephone number(s) – as you are aware, this exemption applies to “personnel and medical files or information; also, any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Exemption (f): Witness information - . . . The above requested records contain witness information; therefore, redactions are appropriate to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. This exemption is also intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about such matters. . . . The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Disclosure would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public’s interest. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests to charge a fee of $31.59 per hour, and states that “The lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record request currently makes $31.59 per hour” Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Accordingly, permission to charge in excess of $25.00 per hour cannot be granted at this time. Conclusion As described above, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information discussed above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction limited to $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). However, I find that the Department has not met its burden to assess a fee in excess of $25 per hour. Please note, Mr. Kay 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).

Barry R. McGrath SPR24/1978 Page 5 July 16, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Greg Kay