Donna M. Ashton v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20250274)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 30, 2025 SPR25/0274 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records Records Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Donna M. Ashton, Esq., of Ashton Turner LaGatta, P.C., 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 7, 2025, Attorney Ashton requested “[a]ny and all documents in the Office of Fair Housing and Equity regarding [a named individual], including but not limited to all complaints, notes, adjudication records, notices of probable cause and notice of not probable cause from January 1, 2020 to the present.” Prior Appeal A similar request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/3392 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 6, 2025). In my January 6th determination, I found that Attorney Ashton had not provided the City with sufficient particularity required for the City to identify the documents she is seeking. The City responded on January 23, 2025, assigning the request reference number R000108-010725. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Ashton petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0274, 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 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. SPR25/0274 Page 2 January 30, 2025 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 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 January 23rd response In its January 23, 2025 response, the City stated, “[Attorney Ashton’s] 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… We encourage [Attorney Ashton] to consider narrowing [her] request…” Current Appeal In her appeal, Attorney Ashton states, “… the attached records request was filed limiting the time scope of the inquiry to a five year period … The requestor suggested that all of the same arguments in the prior appeal apply to this appeal, and those arguments are incorporated by reference.” In her previous appeal, Attorney Ashton stated, “[t]he request in [SPR24/3392] identifies the particular division of the City of Boston where records were being sought, identifies the individual whom records were being sought and further gives examples of categories of documents which would satisfy the request. There are no fine judgments being asked to be made… There is no overbreadth to the request, nor is it vague. It identifies the department, the party and the documents.” Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record 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. SPR25/0274 Page 3 January 30, 2025 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.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “[a]ny and all documents in the Office of Fair Housing and Equity regarding . . .” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Attorney Ashton may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records she is seeking. Once Attorney Ashton has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Attorney Ashton and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Ashton is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies) Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Donna M. Ashton, Esq. Bianca Crockett, Esq.