David Maron v. Lynn, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20250435)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2025 SPR24/0435 James Lamanna, Esq. City Solicitor City of Lynn, Law Department 3 City Hall Square, Room 406 Lynn, MA 01901 Dear Attorney Lamanna: On February 13, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Lynn (City) 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 City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, David Maron, of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 31, 2025, Mr. Maron requested: [1] A list of all civil suits filed since January 1, 2015, against Malden Police Department or an employee thereof, for actions or omissions committed in the course of employment, containing the following information: Case caption[;] Docket number[;] Final disposition (settled, dismissed, verdict, guilty, etc.)[;] Amount of money, if any, paid by the city or involved officer pursuant to a verdict or settlement[;] [2] A list of officers who have been criminally prosecuted since January 1, 2015, containing the officer’s full name and case docket number[;] [3] Any settlement agreements since January 1, 2015[;] [4] Any document, ledger, report, list, or dockets, which summarizes civil lawsuits for actions or omissions committed in the course of employment and/or criminal prosecutions against the Malden Police Department or an employee thereof. 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

James Lamanna, Esq. SPR25/0435 Page 2 February 19, 2025 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. 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 City requests an extension of 10 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The majority of the records sought by the requester are in storage and the City is making a good faith effort to retrieve these records. The request is seeking documents from the past ten years and are stored with all other litigation files against the City of Lynn. Conclusion Based on the information provided in the City’s February 13th petition, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the City’s extension request. In this case, the City intends to provide responsive records within twenty five (25) business days of the receipt of the request, as allowed

James Lamanna, Esq. SPR25/0435 Page 3 February 19, 2025 in G. L. c. 66 § 10(b)(vi). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe for producing records not to exceed 25 business days following initial receipt of the request). Please note, Mr. Maron 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: David Maron