David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20251113)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 7, 2025 SPR25/1113 David Shapiro, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Somerville – Law Department 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Shapiro: I have received the petition of David Chritson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 5, 2025, Mr. Chritson made the following request. [1] This public records request is . . . in connection with . . . [a named police officer] and individuals associated with the Somerville Police Department (“SPD”), the City of Somerville (“City”), et al. [2] . . . I respectfully request all public records, including, but not limited to: [A] all audios[;] [B] all videos[;] [C] all images[;] [D] all documents[;] and [E] all other records regardless of physical form or characteristics —made or received by [a named] SPD officer . . . from March 18, 2023 to April 30, 2024, and related in any way to [an identified individual][;] [3] . . . the records responsive to this request must include all records made by [a named police officer]. This includes all records that were: [A] created[;] [B] contributed to[;] [C] prepared[;] [D] transmitted[;] or [E] communicated by [the named officer][;] [4] . . . records responsive to this request must also include all public records received by [the named officer]. . . . [T]his includes all public records that were: [A] reviewed[;] [B] accessed[;] 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

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1113 Page 2 May 7, 2025 [C] gathered[;] [D] collected[;] [E] transmitted[;] or [F] communicated by, or to, [the named officer][;] . . . [5] [T]he records responsive to this request are statutorily mandated to include— and I hereby request—all public records that [the named officer] made to, or received from: [A] SPD and associated individuals and entities thereof[;] [B] City of Somerville Law Office and associated individuals thereof[;] [C] SPD Criminal Investigation Division and all of its affiliates, including: [1] SPD Family Services Unit[;] [2] SPD General Investigations Unit[;] [3] SPD Community Action Team[;] [D] All investigation files and records related to [an identified individual], including, but not limited to: [1] Investigative materials, findings, recommendation, and conclusion[;] [2] Surveillance and/or monitoring of [an identified individual]: [a] directly or indirectly by SPD[;] and/or [b] via third-party individuals or entities who acted at the direction of SPD or acted in communication with SPD[;] [E] Individuals and entities associated with government entities, including: [1] The Somerville District Court[;] [2] The Ayer District Court[;] [3] The Eastern Housing Court[;] [4] The Office of the Middlesex District Attorney[;] [5] Any and all: [a] local[;] [b] state[;] and/or [c] federal government bodies or entities[;] [F] Individuals and entities associated with: [1] Mass General Brigham[;] [2] Mass General Hospital[;] [3] Boston Medical Center[;] [4] Boston Emergency Services Team a/k/a BEST[;] [5] Cambridge Somerville Emergency Services a/k/a CSESP[;] [6] Cambridge Health Alliance[;] [7] Bay Cove Human Services[;] [8] North Suffolk Community Services[;] [9] All other health-related individuals and entities[;] [10] Barkan Management Company[;] [11] Alloy Condominiums located in Assembly Row, Somerville[;] [12] Northeast Security, Inc. a/k/a Assembly Row Security[;] [13] SP Plus Corp. a/k/a Assembly Row garage parking[;]

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1113 Page 3 May 7, 2025 [G] [Nine identified] [p]ersons listed below and associated individuals, agents, and entities thereof[;] . . . [H] Warrants—whether administrative, court related, or any other kind, including but not limited to: [1] all applications for a warrant, whether attempted, finalized or not[;] [2] all attempts for a warrant at any stage of the process[;] [3] all approved, issued, granted, or executed warrants[;] [I] Subpoenas—whether drafted, incomplete, completed, finalized, or not[;] [J] All communications and records as defined by G.L. c. 4 § 7(26), “regardless of physical form or characteristics,” including, but not limited to: [1] Hand-written materials—including notes, memos, scratch pads[;] [2] Records in physical or electronic form—including P-650 reports[;] [3] Call logs, call history, and voicemails made or received by: [a] Cellular and/or mobile devices[;] [b] Desk phones and other SPD related device[;] [4] SMS, text messages and teletype messages . . .[;] [5] Video and/or audiovisual records and/or recordings[;] [6] Tapes and other similar records of any sort[;] [7] Audios and/or radio transmissions and/or recordings— including, but not limited to, records and/or recordings related to: [a] [An identified individual’s] application for a Harassment Prevention Order (“HPO”) on or about: [i] May 3, 2023[;] [ii] May 4, 2023[;] [iii] May 8, 2023[;] [b] Incidents or events that occurred on or about: [i] October 9, 2023[;] [ii] October 10, 2023[;] [iii] October 11, 2023[;] [iv] November 5, 2023[;] [K] Electronic information transmitted in third party applications on: [1] mobile devices[;] and/or [2] computer terminals[;] [L] SPD dispatch recordings—whether or not maintained by the Emergency Communications section or any other similar variation[;] [M] Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) service slips and notes[.] The City responded on April 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1113, was opened as a result.

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1113 Page 4 May 7, 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. 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 April 18th Response In its April 18, 2025 response, the City indicated that it would need additional time to produce some responsive records and provided a fee estimate of $100.00 for the provision of other records responsive to the request. The City additionally asserted in its response that Mr. Chritson’s request is overly broad. In doing so, the City advised the following: It is the position of the City of Somerville that your request does not comply with the Public Records Law (PRL), G.L. c. 66 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00. Your request is excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by the PRL. The Supervisor of Public Records requires that public records requests must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk Superior Court No. 1784CV02087 (1/23/2019, [sic] the court found that under the PRL “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify 3 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.” 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.” It is unclear with “sufficient particularity” which records you seek. Your entire

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1113 Page 5 May 7, 2025 request “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 ‘[regarding]’ the category of materials requested.” Chawla, at 2. For instance, your request for records “reviewed”, “accessed” or “contributed to” is so broad in scope that we are unable to search for responsive records. Without waiving the above and in an effort to assist in processing your request, as to those matters for which there is a reasonable description, we have asked our IT Department to search [the named officer’s] emails containing the [an identified surname] between 3/18/2023 – 4/30/2024. The search returned approximately 655 pages. . . . Current Appeal In his appeal petition, among other things, Mr. Chritson opposes the portion of the City’s response in which it indicated it would require additional time to provide some of the responsive records. Regarding the City’s fee estimate, he additionally requests that the Supervisor, “[o]rder the City to waive all fees associated with [his] public records request.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office dated May 5, 2025, Mr. Chritson elaborated on his objections to the City’s response. Specifically, he contests “the City’s assertion that [his] request is overbroad[.]” 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 Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1 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 judgements 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, “related in any way to[,]” “records and/or recordings related to[,]” and “all public records, including, but not limited

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1113 Page 6 May 7, 2025 to . . .” does not satisfy the statutory standard for the request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. Chritson may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Chritson has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Mr. Chritson 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 Mr. Chritson wishes to submit another public records request to the City as outlined above, and is unsatisfied with the response, he may again appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Mr. Chritson is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson