Jack Pirozzolo v. Department of Public Utilities (SPR 20251698)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 6, 2025 SPR25/1698 Amelia Gianetta, Esq. Records Access Officer Department of Public Utilities One South Station Boston, MA 02210 Dear Attorney Gianetta: On June 13, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Public Utilities (Department), seeking an extension of time to produce 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, Jack W. Pirozzolo, of Sidley Austin LLP. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 30, 2025, Mr. Pirozzolo requested “Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovksy, and Popeo, P.C. or other outside legal counsel contracts, agreements, invoices, billing statements and correspondence regarding the Department’s connection with Commonwealth v. Exxon Mobil Corporation between January 1, 2023 to May 20, 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; (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 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. SPR25/1698 Page 2 June 16, 2025 (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). Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests an extension of 30 business days and argues the following in support of its request: The Department conducted a preliminary search which is not inclusive of all the records requested by the requester, the Department has determined that it will require an extensive amount of time to complete the request. Because the focus of the request concerns the Department’s contract and agreement with Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovksy, and Popeo, P.C. regarding Commonwealth v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, the following information may be exempt under attorney client privilege. The Department has an obligation to ensure that proper procedures are maintained to prevent the dissemination of information which is protected from disclosure by law. This requires careful review and segregation of records before they are produced to a requester. Further additional information must be redacted pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7(c). Accordingly, the information must be segregated, redacted, and withheld to protect the Department’s attorney client relationship and to prevent the disclosure of personally identifying information. In a correspondence enclosed alongside its petition, the Department provided the following additional information in support of its request for an extension of time: The Department is not able to provide [the requestor] with these records in the statutory term of ten (10) business days because the complexity of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the Department. Specifically, the number of records and redactions required in this case. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension, the Department has established

Amelia Gianetta, Esq. SPR25/1698 Page 3 June 16, 2025 good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension of 10 business days. Conclusion As described above, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 10 business days. Please note, Mr. Pirozzolo 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: Jack W. Pirozzolo