Anna Bruno v. Department of Public Utilities (SPR 20251460)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 27, 2025 SPR25/1460 Amelia Gianetta, Esq. Records Access Officer Department of Public Utilities One South Station Boston, MA 02210 Dear Attorney Gianetta: On May 22, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Public Utilities (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Anna Bruno, Esq., of Lawson & Weitzen LLP. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 8, 2025, Attorney Bruno requested: [C]ommunications between the Department and Baidu Inc. (d/b/a Baidu), Lyft, Inc. (d/b/a Lyft), May Mobility, Inc. (d/b/a May Mobility), Tesla, Inc. (d/b/a Tesla), Uber Technologies Inc. (d/b/a Uber), Waymo LLC (d/b/a Waymo, f/k/a Google Self-Driving Car Project), either individually or through its parent company Alphabet, WeRide Inc. (d/b/a WeRide), or Zoox, Inc. (d/b/a Zoox), either individually or through its parent company Amazon.com, Inc. (d/b/a Amazon) regarding autonomous vehicles and any documents regarding autonomous vehicles created between January 1, 2023 to May 8, 2025. Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; 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

Amelia Gianetta, Esq. SPR25/1460 Page 2 May 27, 2025 (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor 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 may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the Department requests, “an extension of 15 business days to provide the responsive records to the requester.” In support of its request the Department provides the following information: The Department conducted a preliminary search and collected approximately 940 items. According to this preliminary assessment, which is not inclusive of all records requested by the requester, the Department has determined that it will require an extensive amount of time to complete the request. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension of 15 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4).

Amelia Gianetta, Esq. SPR25/1460 Page 3 May 27, 2025 In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (d) and (e):

Amelia Gianetta, Esq. SPR25/1460 Page 4 May 27, 2025 Because the focus of the request concerns email correspondences and attachments between and to and from attorneys regarding proposed rulemaking Portions of these records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to (e) and (d)… Accordingly, the information must be redacted because portions of the responsive records contain personal notes, draft regulations, and draft reports. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 15 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Attorney Bruno has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anna Bruno, Esq.