Shannon Larson v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20250107)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 24, 2025 SPR25/0107 Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: I have received the petition of Shannon Larson, of The Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 18, 2024, Ms. Larson stated, “[w]e understand that the MBTA tracks incidents of overspeeding. We are requesting records that aggregate all of those incidents and that show the date, time, place, track, operator (identified by name or number), and recorded speed of those overspeeding incidents. We are not requesting every extant record related to every incident of overspeeding. We are requesting records that catalog each incident of overspeeding… our request pertains to records from Oct. 4, 2019 to Oct. 3, 2024.” The MBTA responded on December 19, 2024, providing records. Unsatisfied with MBTA’s response, Ms. Larson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0107, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the MBTA sent a response to this office on January 14, 2025. 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. 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

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR25/0107 Page 2 January 24, 2025 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. The MBTA’s December 19th and January 14th Responses In its December 19, 2024 response, the MBTA provided records and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information. Current Appeal In her current appeal, Ms. Larson states the following: After a close inspection of the records, we have discovered that information requested is missing. We requested data through Oct. 3, 2024. However, the data in the “light rail” record only goes through the morning hours of Oct. 1, 2024. It is unclear whether the “labor relations” record also only contains data through Oct. 1, 2024. As you may recall, a Green Line train derailed on the evening of Oct. 1, 2024, which the NTSB attributed, in part, to the operator traveling at rate more than three times the posted speed limit. It is unclear, why then, that the data provided stops at the morning of Oct. 1, 2024. The reasons provided for withholding some of the information requested only pertain to “personnel information.” The reasons stated do not, however, provide an explanation for the records not containing all of the data within the requested timeline (from Oct. 4, 2019 to Oct. 3, 2024). We are asking for this data to be promptly released, particularly given that it has now been more than three months since the initial request. In its response on January 14, 2025, the MBTA stated, “I can confirm that we provided the requestor with all responsive records and did not withhold any records from production.” Based on Ms. Larson’s appeal, it is unclear if the MBTA possesses any additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the MBTA possesses records regarding data of overspeeding incidents from the morning of October 1, 2024 through October 3, 2024. 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). Custodians are 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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether any additional records exist.

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR25/0107 Page 3 January 24, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the MBTA is ordered to provide Ms. Larson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Ms. Larson may appeal the substantive nature of the MBTA’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shannon Larson