Brian McCarter v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20242826)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 29, 2024 SPR24/2826 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Brian McCarter 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 17, 2024, Mr. McCarter requested, “... all [an identified individual’s] emails regarding the area colloquially known as Mass and Cass in the past 6 months.” The City responded on October 3, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2826, 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. Att’y 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. 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 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. SPR24/2826 Page 2 October 29, 2024 custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s October 3rd response In its October 3, 2024 response, the City asserted, “[y]our request [R003776-091724] 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). In a recent Suffolk Superior Court case, the court found that ‘[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.’ Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019).” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. McCarter states the following: [e]arlier this year, on February 10, 2024, I submitted a broader request (Reference #R000658-021024) [as follows] ‘Provide all emails to or from [an identified individual] between September 1, 2023, to date’. In response, the City stated on April 2, 2024, that the initial search yielded over 18,000 records and encouraged me to narrow my request due to its broad nature. In an effort to accommodate the City’s concerns, I significantly narrowed my request by: [1] Specific Individual: Limiting the request to emails from or to [an identified individual]. [2] Defined Subject Matter: Focusing solely on emails regarding ‘Mass and Cass’, a well-known area in Boston commonly referenced in municipal discussions and records. [3] Limited Time Frame: Restricting the time period to the past six months. Despite these efforts, the City continues to consider the request overly broad and vague without providing specific guidance on what further narrowing is needed.” 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 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.”

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/2826 Page 3 October 29, 2024 I encourage Mr. McCarter and the City to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Mr. McCarter may wish to modify or clarify his request to the City in order to provide the sufficient particularity needed in order to search the City’s records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. McCarter wishes to submit another public records request to the City as outlined above, and is unsatisfied with the response, he may again appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter