Tom Kimball v. Massachusetts Port Authority (SPR 20252009)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 17, 2025 SPR25/2009 Shannon O’Donnell Records Access Officer Massachusetts Port Authority One Harborside Drive, Suite 2005 East Boston, MA 02128 Dear Ms. O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Tom Kimball appealing the response of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 25, 2025, Mr. Kimball requested the following: [1] Going back to the beginning of 2024, documentation of all flights by [three identified companies] to any Massport airfield, to include (if available): [a] Takeoff and landing date and times[;] [b] Number of passengers aboard[;] [c] Origin/destination[;] [d] Tail number[;] [e] Fixed base operator servicing the flight[;] [f] Affiliation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement[;] [2] Going back to 2015, any documents/emails detailing cooperation with or communication between [an identified company] and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Authority responded on June 23, 2025. On June 25, 2025, Mr. Kimball narrowed his Item 2 request stating, “[t]he date range can be narrowed to January 1st 2020 to June 24th 2025.” Claiming to have received no further response, Mr. Kimball petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2009, 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 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

Shannon O’Donnell SPR25/2009 Page 2 July 17, 2025 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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. The Authority’s June 23rd Response On June 23, 2025, the Authority stated, “…with respect to your May 25th request…please be advised that, based on an initial review, Massport does not believe that it has any documents that are responsive to your request as this request seeks communication between a private entity and a federal agency. Narrowing of this request, including providing email addresses of senders/recipients as well as names of potential custodians of the emails would be necessary for Massport to complete additional searches for potential responsive documents.” Current Appeal In his July 10, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Kimball stated, “I filed the initial request on May 25th. They responded to me on June 23rd asking for additional information to help narrow my search, which I provided on June 25th. MassPort has not confirmed the receipt of this clarification, offered me an update on the document search, produced the requested documents or, to my knowledge, filed for an extension…” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided

Shannon O’Donnell SPR25/2009 Page 3 July 17, 2025 further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Kimball narrowed his request on June 25, 2025, and the Authority has not provided the responsive records, I find the Authority has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, I find the Authority must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete its review and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide Mr. Kimball with a response to the request, 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. Mr. Kimball may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tom Kimball