Rachel and William Motley v. Dover-Sherborn Regional School District (SPR 20251603)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 10, 2025 SPR25/1603 Elizabeth M. McCoy Superintendent of Schools Dover-Sherborn Regional School District Superintendent’s Office 157 Farm Street Dover, MA 02030 Dear Superintendent McCoy: On May 12, 2025, this office received the petition of Justin Gomes, Esq., of Stoneman, Chandler & Miller LLP, on behalf of the Dover-Sherborn Regional School District (District) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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 School furnished a copy of the petition to the requestors, Rachel and William Motley. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 23, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Motley requested: [1] All invoices, billing statements, and payment records submitted to and/or received from any Title IX investigator, [an identified individual], Sankey Law Office, PC hired by Dover Sherborn Public School District related to any Title IX investigation conducted between September 1, 2024 through present date. [2] All email and written correspondence between the school (including but not limited to administrators, Title IX coordinators, and legal counsel) a Title IX investigator, Jeffrey M. Sankey, Sankey Law Office, PC. This includes all communications regarding scope of work, investigative findings, recommendations, timelines, and any follow up. 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 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

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR25/1603 Page 2 June 10, 2025 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; (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 Responsive Records In its petition, the District requests “an additional thirty (30) business days to respond to the request upon receiving payment” and provides the following information in support of its request: This request requires a thorough search, segregation and examination of records. The materials being reviewed will likely include information prohibited from disclosure. There are limited staff with the expertise and availability to interpret documents in light of this request. These staff have duties critical for the operations of the school district. The District has also received two different requests from this same requestor that is estimated to take a total of over three hundred fifty two (352) hours to complete. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the District to produce the records without an extension, the District has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The District is granted an extension of 30 business days.

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR25/1603 Page 3 June 10, 2025 Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR25/1603 Page 4 June 10, 2025 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)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the District requests to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In an email to the requestors and this office on June 9, 2025, the District provided the following information in support of its request: [T]his request may include disclosures/information by witnesses that is commonly regarded as intimate, private, and potentially embarrassing if made public. As a public school is tasked with serving children, the district is mindful of the heightened expectation of privacy in documents related to them and those that serve them. The Title IX investigation referenced in this request concerns an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment pursuant to the District’s obligations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. In light of the District’s petition, I find the District 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 District may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the District has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the District may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Also, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the District to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. and Mrs. Motley 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).

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR25/1603 Page 5 June 10, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rachel and William Motley Justin Gomes, Esq.