Cassandra Dumay v. Lawrence, City of - City Attorney's Office (SPR 20250564)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 3, 2025 SPR25/0564 Kevin Foley, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Attorney Foley: On February 27, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Lawrence (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive 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, Cassandra Dumay, of the Boston Globe. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 13, 2025, Ms. Dumay requested, “[a]ll communications sent between January 1, 2020 and the date of this request from the Lawrence City Council, Mayor’s Office and departments to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office in response to requests for information or civil investigative demands.” 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 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

Kevin Foley, Esq. SPR25/0564 Page 2 March 3, 2025 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the City requests, “an extension of time, not to exceed 25 business days, from the date of the grant of the extension, to furnish the records responsive to this request.” In support of its request the City provides the following information: As grounds for allowance of the extension, the request, as presently constituted, encompasses records going back more than five (5) years which are subject to review and redaction. After collecting these records, City staff would need to examine, segregate and redact the records before disclosing them. Although City employees work 35 hours each week to complete their regular duties, there is no dedicated staff assigned to review and redact records responsive to FOIA request. As such, the records sought by the present request would need to be retrieved, segregated, reviewed and redacted during normal business hours in addition to completion of regular duties. The City is unware of any public interest which will be served by expeditious disclosure. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 25 business days. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i).

Kevin Foley, Esq. SPR25/0564 Page 3 March 3, 2025 Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, the City requests, “waiver of statutory fee limits to charge for time spent segregating and redacting records.” In support of its request, the City provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions: In addition, there is no doubt that the records sought by this request as presently constituted are like subject to: G.” c 4, §7(26), exemption (b) records related solely to internal personnel rules and practices; exemption (c) personnel and medical files or information and other materials related to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute and unwarranted invasion of privacy; exemption (d) the deliberative process exemption involving inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda and letters on legal and policy matters; exemption (f) investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of public view by law enforcement or other investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of public view by law enforcement or not be in the public interest; exemption (j) allowing custodians of firearm records to withhold in the applications and licenses of firearms license holders; and exemptions (o) and (p) regarding withholding the name, home address, personal email and telephone number of government employees and their family members. In addition, all confidential communications between the Council, Mayor and the Attorney General and the City Attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and assistance are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. Suffolk Contr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444,450 (2007). In light of the City’s petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material

Kevin Foley, Esq. SPR25/0564 Page 4 March 3, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 25 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Further, this office encourages the requestor and the City to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, §10(b)(vii). Please note, Ms. Dumay 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: Cassandra Dumay