Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Manager (SPR 20250448)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 28, 2025 SPR25/0448 Paul Cohen Town Manager Town of Chelmsford 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Mr. Cohen: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Town of Chelmsford (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 29, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk requested “copies of billing invoices for services rendered by KP Law, P.C. and any other law firm to Town of Chelmsford from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024.” The Town responded on February 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0448, 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. 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 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

Paul Cohen SPR25/0448 Page 2 February 28, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mazurczyk contends that the Town’s “response fails to identify specific Public Records Law exemption(s) under 950 CMR 32.06(3) that justifies made redactions. I request unredacted records.” The Town’s February 12th Response In its February 12, 2025 response, the Town provides numerous responsive invoices in redacted form. The Town indicates that the records have been redacted pursuant to the attorney- client privilege. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege, the Supervisor of Records “shall not inspect the record but shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In its February 12th response, the Town provides copies of numerous invoices for legal services in redacted form. Additionally, in its response, the Town explains the following: Where permitted by law ... such records or material contained therein may be withheld or redacted under any of the exemptions to the Public Records Law, other applicable provisions of law, and/or common law privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., G.L. c. 4, §7(26); Suffolk Construction Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 449-450 (2007); 950 CMR 32.06(3). In this case, based upon the Town’s individualized review of the legal invoices responsive to your request from Town Counsel, which contain references to legal work conducted on behalf of the Town confidentially by Town Counsel, the

Paul Cohen SPR25/0448 Page 3 February 28, 2025 Town has redacted certain confidential information contained in legal invoices provided to the Town for the purpose of providing legal advice, for which the attorney-client privilege has not been waived, and, which also contain confidential work product. In this case, although portions of the invoices were redacted, the Town has left intact the information required under G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a), including the dates, the names of the authors and recipients, and information regarding the subject of each entry. Based on the information included in the invoices, and the explanation provided in the Town’s February 12th response, I find that the Town has met its burden to redact these invoices pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Mazurczyk 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: Stanley Mazurczyk