Laura Crimaldi v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20251219)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 12, 2025 SPR25/1219 William J. Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: I have received the petition of Laura Crimaldi, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 7, 2025, Ms. Crimaldi requested the following records: ... data concerning actions taken against driver’s licenses and or registrations (including suspensions and non-renewal status) each year under each of the statutes below between Jan. 1, 2018 and the date this request is fulfilled. (In other words, I’m seeking the number of suspensions for each year for each of the circumstances listed.) [1] MG.L., c. 60A, § 2A, suspension of a driver’s license as a repercussion for non- payment of vehicle excise tax. [2] M.G.L., c. 62C, § 47B, revocation of driver’s licenses, permits or motor vehicle registrations for nonpayment of state taxes; [3] M.G.L., c. 90, § 20G, nonrenewal of driver’s licenses for failure to appear or non-payment of fines under DOT regulations. [4] Paragraphs 6 and 7 of M.G.L., c. 90, § 23. Paragraph 6 suspends a license automatically for 60 days or a year after a conviction for operating with a suspended or revoked license; Paragraph 7 permits automatic registration revocation for vehicle owners whose cars were driven by someone under suspension; [5] Second sentence of M.G.L., c. 90, § 26A which allows for the suspension of driver’s licenses and permits for failure to update name or address information. [6] M.G.L., c. 90C § 3 paragraph (A)(6)(b), which allows for the suspension and revocation of drivers licenses as a result of a returned payment for citations or RMV fees. [7] M.G.L., c. 211D, § 2A paragraph (h), third sentence which allows the clerk 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

William J. Doyle, Esq. SPR25/1219 Page 2 May 12, 2025 of court to issue a non-renew of an individual’s driver’s license for failure to pay court fees. I am also seeking data concerning the following: [8] The number of licensed drivers in Massachusetts each year between Jan. 1, 2018 and the date this request is fulfilled; [9] The number drivers whose licenses were suspended for non- payment and administrative issues each year between Jan. 1, 2018 and the date this request is fulfilled; [10] The number of drivers whose licenses were suspended for all issues (non-payment, civil infractions, surchargeable events, immediate threat reports, chemical test refusals, OUI suspensions, and any other reason between Jan. 1, 2018 and the date this request is fulfilled[.] MassDOT provided a response on March 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with MassDOT’s March 21st response, Ms. Crimaldi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1219, 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. MassDOT’s March 25th Response In its March 25, 2025 response, MassDOT stated, “[p]lease be advised that we will require additional time to respond to your request as the efforts to extract the data have been time- consuming. As a result, we may extend the time to respond to your initial request by up to an additional five (5) business days.

William J. Doyle, Esq. SPR25/1219 Page 3 May 12, 2025 Timeliness in providing records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Crimaldi’s request was originally submitted on March 7, 2025, and MassDOT has not provided the outstanding responsive records, I find MassDOT has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find MassDOT must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, MassDOT must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, MassDOT is ordered to provide Ms. Crimaldi with a response, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Crimaldi may appeal the substantive nature of MassDOT’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Crimaldi