David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20251298)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 21, 2025 SPR25/1298 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 5, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested the following: [1] [A]ll “public records”… beginning from July 19, 2021 to the present date, made or received by SPD and related in any way to [identified individual][;] [2] [A]ll public records related to [identified individual] beginning from July 19, 2021 to the present date, made or received by any or all personnel listed in the SPD rosters dated 2023[;] [3] [A]ll public records related to [identified individual], beginning from July 19, 2021 to the present date, in the custody of, accessible by, or made, or received by [identified Somerville Police Department Units][;] [4] [A]ll public records related to [identified individual] beginning from July 19, 2021 to the present date, (1.) related to, (2.) located in, (3.) made to, or (4.) received from [identified entities]. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1135 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 7, 2025). In my May 7th determination, I ordered the City to provide Mr. Chritson with a response to his request. Subsequently, the City responded on May 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1298, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response to Mr. Chritson and this office on May 9, 2025. 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. SPR25/1298 Page 2 May 21, 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 May 8th and May 9th Responses In its May 8, 2025 response, the City states the following: The City Solicitor and the City’s IT Department have both conducted email searches and have failed to locate the email from [Mr. Chritson] dated April 5, 2025, as shown on page 3 of [his] appeal to the Supervisor of Public Records. . . . No response was received by [Mr. Chritson] because we did not receive the request. Therefore, no further response is required by us at this time. In its May 9, 2025 response, the City states the following: I write to confirm that we cannot locate the email that is the subject of this appeal. We have confirmed with the IT Department that even if the email had been accidentally deleted, it would have been found by them. IT informed us that when a search is conducted, the software scans the user’s entire mailbox. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson contends that his “records show that the email was sent directly to the City’s RAO . . . who likely blocked or deleted the email. [He is] prepared to provide additional evidence if required by the Supervisor of Records.”

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1298 Page 3 May 21, 2025 Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control The City is advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on the City’s response, it is unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Mr. Chritson’s request. If the City does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Chritson with a response to the request, 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. Mr. Chritson may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson