Sean Cotter v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20252005)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2025 SPR25/2005 Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Records Access Officer Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office 45 Shawmut Road Canton, MA 02021 Dear Attorney Hunt: On July 10, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) seeking 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 Office furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Sean Cotter, of Boston Globe. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On July 1, 2025, Mr. Cotter requested “[t]he following in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Karen Read, docket number 2282CR00117.” [1] Any and all documents created in the investigation of the case. In effect, the full investigative file on the case[;] [2] Any correspondence to or from the US attorney’s office regarding this case, including, but not limited to, all documents turned over to the DA’s office in January and February 2024[;] [3] Any and all contracts or other billing documents related to outside experts in the case[;] [4] The final amended contract for the special prosecutor, [identified individual]. It is my understanding that the Office’s petition concerns Item 2 of Mr. Cotter’s request. Petition to assess fees – Agencies A fee shall not 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR25/2005 Page 2 July 16, 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 a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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. Current Petition In its petition, the Office seeks to charge “for time segregating and redacting the records beyond the statutory requirements outlined in G.L. c. 7, § (26)(a).” In support of its request, the Office provides the following information: 1,181 items were identified as potentially responsive to this portion of Mr. Cotter’s request.

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR25/2005 Page 3 July 16, 2025 [T]he undersigned records access officer reasonably anticipates that among those emails, there will be sensitive information that necessitates redactions extending beyond the statutory requirements outlined in G.L. c. 7, § (26)(a). These additional redactions are likely under G.L. c. 7, § (26)(c), (d), (f), (n), (o), and (p). Approval to charge for the extra time involved in these redactions would ensure thorough protection of sensitive information. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Office has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Office has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate to enable the Office to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Cotter 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: Sean Cotter