Rachael Clifford v. Department of Public Utilities (SPR 20252060)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 23, 2025 SPR25/2060 Amelia Gianetta, Esq. Records Access Officer Department of Public Utilities One South Station Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Gianetta: On July 16, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Public Utilities seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Rachael Clifford, of the Laborers’ New England Region Organizing Fund. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 9, 2025, Ms. Clifford requested, “75 Pipeline dockets regarding the Riley Brothers from January 1, 2015 to June 9, 2025 and 373 consumer complaints regarding the Riley Brothers from January 1, 2020 to June 9, 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 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. SPR25/2060 Page 2 July 23, 2025 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 Records In its petition, the Department requests “an extension of 20 business days to provide the responsive records to the requester” In support of its request the Department states, “[g]iven that there are approximately 447 items that the Department must review and redact, this will impose an onerous burden on the Department, which will have to devote limited resources to review and redact these records.” In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension of 20 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency 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 determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose.

Amelia Gianetta, Esq. SPR25/2060 Page 3 July 23, 2025 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency 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 – 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 Department requests “that the Supervisor grant its petition to assess a reasonable fee.” In support of its petition, the Department provides the following information: According to this preliminary assessment, 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. The request concerns consumer complaints and Pipeline Dockets. Portions of the records contain information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7(c) and (n). Accordingly, the information must be segregated and redacted to secure the safety of persons and public places before the records are produced to the requester. Further, 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. Segregation and redaction of records often involves the application of multiple exemptions to the public records law to a single document, which may include several attachments. Some information is simultaneously protected by more than one exemption or different exemptions

Amelia Gianetta, Esq. SPR25/2060 Page 4 July 23, 2025 depending on context or the time of disclosure. In light of the Department’s petition, I find that the Department 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 Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Clifford 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: Rachael Clifford