James P. Ryan v. Everett, City of - Solicitor's Office (SPR 20251368)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 29, 2025 SPR25/1368 Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. City Solicitor City of Everett 484 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 Dear Attorney Mejia: I have received the petition of James P. Ryan appealing the response of the City of Everett (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 14, 2024, Mr. Ryan requested “all copies of all [d]ocuments relating to the time period March 2009 through July 2024 concerning the property at …Liberty St. Everett, MA 02149.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/2494 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 13, 2024). In my September 13th determination, I ordered the City to provide Mr. Ryan with response to the request. Subsequently, the City responded on May 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1368, 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 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

Colleen Mejia, Esq. SPR25/1368 Page 2 May 29, 2025 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 Response In its May 8, 2025 response, the City stated: It’s the City’s position that this request is overbroad which makes it infeasible for the City to conduct a reasonable search for records and provide a response. It would take countless hours searching archived files to locate potential responsive documents… Chawla v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue et al… Additionally… the Requestor’s requests are part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass the City… [T]he Requestor continues to waste the City’s limited time and scared public resources… Mr. Ryan is using his requests for commercial purposes rather than broad dissemination of information to the public in order to satisfy the Requestor’s own vendetta... “…[T]he public records law does not require public agencies simply to provide the requested records no matter the burden imposed, nor does it require public agencies to shunt aside their principal public functions to do so…” Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals… Therefore, the City should be excused from any obligation to respond to the current request and any future requests… Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Ryan argues, “[t]his Request Appeal is for K P Law documents relating only to …Liberty St. Everett.” Please be advised that in Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in

Colleen Mejia, Esq. SPR25/1368 Page 3 May 29, 2025 Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. In its response, the City cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019), in which 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.” 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 judgments 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). With regard to Mr. Ryan’s request, I find that the language “all [d]ocuments relating to…” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. Ryan may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Additionally, the City is advised that the Supervisor of Records lacks the authority to relieve records custodians from the obligation of responding to prospective requests. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (“If the supervisor of records determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the supervisor of records may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought.”(emphasis added)). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Ryan is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies).

Colleen Mejia, Esq. SPR25/1368 Page 4 May 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James P. Ryan