Erica Jorgensen v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251858)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 10, 2025 SPR25/1858 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 Erica Jorgensen, of Boston25 – WFXT, Cox Media Group, 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 March 25, 2025, Ms. Jorgensen requested, “[a]ny and all accident/incident reports involving Boston Public School busses from August 29th, 2024 – Present.” The City provided a response on June 10, 2025 and June 25, 2025, assigning the request reference number R002636-052725. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Jorgensen petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1858, 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 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. 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 SPR25/1858 Page 2 July 10, 2025 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. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Jorgensen states, “[m]y request was denied saying it was too vague and left too much to interpretation. I don’t agree with that denial. I am not requesting any and all records related to bus accidents, I am specifically requesting accident or incident reports related to bus accidents.” The City’s June 10th and 25th responses In its June 10, 2025 response, the City advised Ms. Jorgensen “[d]ue to the nature of your request, additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to, but no more than, fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process your request.” In its June 25, 2025 response, the City asserted, 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). In a recent Suffolk Superior Court case, the court found that “[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.” Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further found “[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.” Id. (emphasis in original). The Supervisor of Public Records has applied the Chawla decision to find: “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 describes the public record sought.’” SPR Determination No. 25/1101 (May 5, 2025) (citing G.L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i)). In your request, you seek “any and all accident/incident reports involving Boston Public School busses from August 29th, 2024 - Present.” This is overly broad

Grace Jung SPR25/1858 Page 3 July 10, 2025 because your request “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 ‘[involving]’ the category of materials requested.” Chawla, at 2. 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. It is important to note that many of these records would likely contain information exempt in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, also known as FERPA. 20 U.S.C. § 1232 g. Reasonable Description of Records Sought A request for records must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, 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.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). 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.” The City is further advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In this case, Ms. Jorgensen has described the category of records she is seeking, including, among other things, a date range and the specific type of document she seeks. While her request may potentially result in a large volume of responsive records, she has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents she is seeking. This office encourages Ms. Jorgensen and the City to communicate directly in order 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

Grace Jung SPR25/1858 Page 4 July 10, 2025 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 Ms. Jorgensen with a response, provided 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. Ms. Jorgensen may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Erica Jorgensen