David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20251116)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 7, 2025 SPR25/1116 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 5, 2025, Mr. Chritson made the following request: This is a public records request to identify to me, all [existing] “public records” (as defined by the public records law) made, prepared, gathered, collected, reviewed, accessed, or received by the Somerville Police Department and associated partners, employees, contractors, and agents thereof; and related [to] and/or potentially related to [an identified individual], whether directly or indirectly. Specifically, the [existing] “public records” to be identified to me must also include all physical and/or electronic: [1] records[;] [2] reports[;] [3] notes[;] [4] recordings[;] [5] photographs[;] [6] warrant[s] of any kind[,] [whether administrative, court ordered, or any other kind,] [including:] [a] [all applications for a warrant, whether attempted, finalized or not, etc.][;] [b] [all attempts for a warrant, at any stage whatsoever][;] [c] [all approved, issued, or granted warrants][;] [d] [all executed warrants][;] [7] subpoenas[;] [8] all investigation files and file numbers[;] [9] any and all investigation’s: 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. SPR25/1116 Page 2 May 7, 2025 [a] findings[;] [b] conclusions[;] [c] recommendations[;] and/or [d] other results of any investigation[;] [10] correspondence and/or communication in any form to include: [a] written or typed reports in paper form or digital form (including P-650 reports)[;] [b] phone call history[;] [c] voicemails[;] [d] cell-phone call history[;] [e] cell phone voicemails[;] [f] SMS text messages[;] [g] iMessages[;] [h] e-mail messages[;] [i] teletype messages[;] [j] video messages[;] [11] electronic messages transmitted in third party applications either on: [a] a mobile device[;] or [b] a computer terminal[;] [12] handwritten: [a] letters[;] [b] notes[;] and [c] correspondence[;] [13] Somerville Police Department dispatch recordings maintained by the Emergency Communications section and/or any similar variation[;] [14] Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) service slips and notes[;] [15] [All existing] “public records,” [ -- ] [including all] video recordings and audio recordings of verbal communications, [ -- ] made by and/or between City of Somerville personnel and/or by and between external local/state/federal law enforcement and judicial agencies and/or departments, and/or any other third party that has contributed to and/or communicated with the Somerville Police Department and/or associated partners, employees, contractors, or agents thereof, regarding any matter related to [and/or potentially related to] [an identified individual][;] [16] [Please identify all records that in any way have been, are, or will be:] [a] [altered or modified. . .][;] [b] [deleted or destroyed. . .][;] [c] [no longer accessible. . .] [d] [not recorded. . .][;] [e] [withheld[;] and/or] [f] [no longer in the custody of the Somerville Police Department.] The City responded on February 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1116, was opened as a result.

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1116 Page 3 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 February 21st Response In its February 21, 2025 response, the City contended that Mr. Chritson’s “request does not comply with the Public Records Law (PRL), G.L. c. 66 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00.” In support of this contention, the City cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087 (January 23, 2019), and stated the following: 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) . . . . As examples, your requests for “all records” that are “potentially related” to you “directly or indirectly” and your request for communications “by and between … any other third party that has contributed to and/or communicated with the Somerville Police Department and/or associated partners, employees, contractors, or agents thereof, regarding any matter related to [and/or potentially related to] [an identified individual]” do not comply with G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and the Chawla decision . . . . It is unclear with “sufficient particularity” which records you seek. Your entire 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. The City is unable to identify which records you seek and we are, therefore,

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1116 Page 4 May 7, 2025 unable to respond to your request for records or provide a fee estimate at this time. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson states his belief in, “[a] pattern of repeated violations of the public records law by the City of Somerville and the Somerville Police Department (SPD)[.]” In additional correspondence provided via email to this office on May 5, 2025, Mr. Chritson further claims that his request “was a comprehensive but precise request that could be responded to with a targeted search” and contends that “[t]he City’s blanket rejection is unjustified and unlawful.” 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 [to] and/or potentially related to. . .[,]” “regarding any matter related 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).

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1116 Page 5 May 7, 2025 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