Mitchell Kosht v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251427)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 3, 2025 SPR25/1427 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Mitchell Kosht, Esq. appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 3, 2025, Attorney Kosht requested: A data extract or download from the city of Boston’s GovQA public records portal/software showing the following fields of data for each public records request received by the City of Boston in 2024: [1] City Department request was directed to [2] Date of request [3] Date of response [4] Date records were produced [5] Fees charged The City responded on May 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney Kosht petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1427, 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 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

Grace Jung SPR25/1427 Page 2 June 3, 2025 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 7th Response In its May 7, 2025 response, the City provided reference number R001748-040325 to the request, and stated: Your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Furthermore, there is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024)…. Here, you seek ‘A data extract or download’ from GovQA ‘showing the following fields of data for each public records request received by the City of Boston in 2024.’ An unreasonable amount of research would need to be conducted to create this record, as this information cannot be directly extracted in the format you requested and a ‘fees charged’ field does not exist within our current system. As such, your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as there is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024) (March 15, 2024). Finally, if the City was able to determine the records requested with reasonable particularity, it is likely based on your current request that it would be necessary to charge a fee estimate given the large volume of potential records. Any and all documents and/or information that is requested may involve a significant volume of records, including records containing information that must be redacted before the records can be released. We encourage you to submit a new request with a more specific description or a narrower scope. In the meantime, this request will be closed. Should you seek specific records, we encourage you to visit the City’s public records portal.

Grace Jung SPR25/1427 Page 3 June 3, 2025 Current Appeal In his May 13th email to the City, Attorney Kosht states: I believe the request reasonably and precisely describes the data sought. I do not understand how there is any ambiguity or confusion about the data fields I have asked for, especially since the city was able to determine that one field (fees charged) is not maintained in the database. (If this data does not exist, I’m happy to narrow my request so as to exclude it.) Given your response, I presume the rest of the information requested—i.e., the department to which a request was directed and the dates of request, response, and production of records—is stored by GovQA. If you have specific questions about the information I seek, I’d ask that the terms ‘date of request,’ ‘date of response,’ ‘date records were produced,’ and ‘city department request was directed to’ be interpreted by reference to 950 Code Mass. Regs. 32.05 (1) (c), which requires essentially the same data to be maintained and provided by state agencies annually. I am available to discuss, as I stated in my letter. I would be more than happy to discuss a modification of my request as contemplated… Reasonable Description of Records Sought 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 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. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the

Grace Jung SPR25/1427 Page 4 June 3, 2025 statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. In this case, Attorney Kosht has provided a date range, descriptions of the categories of responsive records he is seeking, including the specific subject matter of the records. While his request may potentially result in a large volume of responsive records, he has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents he is seeking. Where Attorney Kosht has stated he is willing to modify or clarify his request, this office encourages Attorney Kosht and the City to communicate directly 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, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Kosht with a response to his request 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. Attorney Kosht 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: Mitchell Kosht, Esq.