David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20251118)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 2, 2025 SPR25/1118 David Shapiro, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Somerville 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 March 2, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested the following records: [1] Any and all inquiries, requests for access, requests for records, and/or requests for information; [2] Made orally, in writing, and/or in any other way by [a] any and all private persons and or/entities, and/or[;] [b] any and all local, state, and/or federal government persons and/or entities; and [3] In any way directly or indirectly pertaining to, or related to, [an identified individual]; and [4] Received by the Somerville Police Department (“SPD”), and/or the City of Somerville Law Department (“City”), and/or agents and/or personnel of SPD and/or the City. . . . Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/0849 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 31, 2025). In my March 31st determination, I ordered the City to provide Mr. Chritson with a response to his request. The City responded on April 2, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1118, was opened as a result. 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. SPR25/1118 Page 2 May 2, 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. See 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. See 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 2nd Response In its April 2, 2025 response, the City stated, “[i]t is the position of the City that this request does not comply with the Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00. This request is excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by [Public Records Law]… Please submit clarifying information and we will respond to your request.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Chritson requested that: [1] [T]he City [conduct] a reasonable search of all files, person, systems, and entities within its control, custody, or possession; including investigative files, backup-mail servers, litigation-hold archives, and case-management databases[;] [2] [T]he City [produce] all responsive records and segregable non-exempt portions thereof immediately. 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

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1118 Page 3 May 2, 2025 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 “any and all inquiries, requests for records, and/or requests for information… In any way directly or indirectly pertaining 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 is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office share 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: David Chritson