David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20251273)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 21, 2025 SPR25/1273 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 22, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested the following: PART I I respectfully request all public records regardless of physical form or characteristics, related to David Chritson and made or received by [a named individual] of the Somerville Police Department (“SPD”). The public records responsive to this request must additionally include all audios, videos, audiovisual records, images, papers, documents, communications, and other related information of any sort. . . . PART II Separately, and in addition to the above request, I respectfully request all public records regardless of physical form or characteristics, related to David Chritson and in the custody or control of, or made or received by: 1. SPD Criminal Investigation Division 2. SPD Family Services Unit 3. SPD General Investigation Unit 4. SPD Community Action Team The public records responsive to this request must additionally include all audios, videos, audiovisual records, images, papers, documents, communications, and other related information of any sort. . . . PART III Separately, and in addition to the above requests, I respectfully request all public 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. SPR25/1273 Page 2 May 21, 2025 records regardless of physical form or characteristics, from July 19, 2021 to April 22, 2025, related to David Chritson and (1.) related to, (2.) located in, (3.) made or received by, (4.) made to, and/or (5.) received from, the following: A. All investigation files and records, including, but not limited to: [a list of seven subcategories] B. Individuals and entities associated with government entities, including: [a list of eight subcategories] C. Individuals and entities associated with: [a list of 13 named entities] D. The persons listed below and/or associated individuals, agents, or entities thereof: [a list of ten named individuals] E. Warrants—whether administrative, court ordered, or any other warrant of any kind, including but not limited to: 1. all applications for a warrant, whether or not attempted or finalized; 2. all attempts for a warrant at any stage of any process; and/or 3. all approved, issued, granted, or executed warrants. F. Subpoenas—whether incomplete, completed, finalized or not. G. All communications and public records as defined by G.L. c. 4 § 7, Twentysixth, “regardless of physical form or characteristics,” including, but not limited to: [a list of eight subcategories] H. Electronic information transmitted in third party applications on: 1. mobile devices, and/or 2. computer terminals I. SPD dispatch recordings—whether or not maintained by the Emergency Communications section or any other variation J. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) service slips and notes The City responded on May 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1273, 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

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1273 Page 3 May 21, 2025 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 May 6th Response In its May 6, 2025 response, the City states the following: As to Part I of your request, we will conduct an email search for all communications to or from [a named individual] that include the word “Chritson.” Due to the magnitude of your request and the resources required to provide a complete response, the city will provide you with a supplemental response and provide you with the public records sought within 25 business days from the date of the receipt of your request. The city intends to produce records, and may redact or withhold records if any exemptions are identified under the Massachusetts Public Records Law or any other statutes. Any exemptions will be set out in the City’s supplemental response to you. As to the remainder of your request, the City hereby restates and incorporates herein by reference all previous replies and estimates provided to you. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson argues the following: The City’s response unlawfully does the following: A. Ignored approximately eighty percent (80%) of Petitioner’s request (audio, videos, investigatory reports, papers, documents, materials, etc.) and only agreed to conduct a limited email keyword search for only one officer; B. Stated that it would respond within 25 business days for unspecified records, and provided no legitimate justification other than an effort to delay, discourage, and prevent the public’s right to access the records; C. Invoked a blanket reference to “all previous replies and estimates” made in previous, unrelated appeals for the remainder of the Petitioner’s current request, and failed to specify or explain them; and D. Provided no identification of withheld records, exemption analysis, withholding basis, search certification, or fee waiver decision.

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1273 Page 4 May 21, 2025 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 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 appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson Cynthia Amara, Esq.