David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20251114)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 7, 2025 SPR25/1114 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 February 7, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested the following: [A]ll “public records” detailing all persons associated directly and/or indirectly with the Somerville Police Department, including, but not limited to: 1. All personnel, 2. All employees, 3. All officers, 4. All non-officers, 5. All contractors, 6. All agents, and 7. All third-parties, e.g.: a. private individuals and entities, and b. local, state, and federal government individuals and entities. Please include: 1. Name, 2. Title, rank, and/or position, 3. Race, 4. Gender, 5. Contact e-mail, 6. Contact phone number, and 7. Other related information of any sort. 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. SPR25/1114 Page 2 May 7, 2025 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/0673 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 24, 2025). In my March 24th determination, I closed SPR25/0673 in light of the City providing a supplemental response on March 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1114, 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s March 10th and March 17th Responses In its March 10, 2025 response, the City provided numerous responsive records, including a link to a website with contact information for officers and employees. In its March 17, 2025 response, the City explains the following: We find the remainder of the records requested to be overly broad and imprecise and as such, we are unable to identify which records Mr. Chritson is requesting. In Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk Superior Court No. 1784CV02087 (1/23/2019), the 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.” 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’

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1114 Page 3 May 7, 2025 to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” Therefore, the remainder of Mr. Chritson’s request does not comply with G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and the Chawla decision described above. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson requests that this office “order the City to conduct a reasonable search of all files, persons, systems, and entities within its control, custody, or possession; including investigative files, backup‑mail servers, litigation‑hold archives, and case‑management databases.” He further requests that this office “order the City to produce all responsive records and segregable non-exempt portions thereof immediately.” Reasonable Description of the 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. 1784CV02087, 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). This office encourages Mr. Chritson and the City to communicate directly in order 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 now 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).

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1114 Page 4 May 7, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson