Jeb Nosal v. Department of Public Utilities (SPR 20252160)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 29, 2025 SPR25/2160 Amelia Gianetta, Esq. Records Access Officer Department of Public Utilities One South Station Boston, MA 02210 Dear Attorney Gianetta: On July 22, 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, Attorney Jed M. Nosal, of Womble Bond Dickinson LLP. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On July 9, 2025, Attorney Nosal requested “any and all records (including correspondences) relating to the Transportation Network Company Division’s (“Division”) compliance with G.L. c. 25 § 23(b), requiring the assessment of a surcharge to Uber/Raiser, for fiscal years FY 24 and FY 25.” Prior Petition A similar request was the subject of a prior petition. See SPR25/1898 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 8, 2025). In my July 8th determination, I found that the Department had established good cause for a time extension of 10 business days but denied the Department’s fee petition for its segregation and redaction on the basis that it was untimely. 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; 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. SPR25/2160 Page 2 July 29, 2025 (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 (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 20 business days and argues the following in support of its request: The Department conducted a preliminary search and collected approximately 230 items. 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. Because the focus of the request concerns communications within the Department regarding the interpretation of G.L.c. 25 § 23(b). All information falling within these categories is exempt from disclosure pursuant to attorney-client privilege because the records contain confidential communications between legal counsel and the client (i.e., the Department) undertaken for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or assistance on matters of law. Also, the Department intends to withhold certain email chains, documents, and related information as they are protected under G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) exempts from the definition of public records those records that are specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute. In this case, G.L. c. 159A½, § 8(e) states that any record furnished by a transportation network company (“TNC”) to the Department shall not be considered a public record. This includes emails and documents. Further, the Department has redacted the surcharge number assigned to each TNC because they have been provided by

Amelia Gianetta, Esq. SPR25/2160 Page 3 July 29, 2025 the TNCs. The surcharge number is not considered a public record and has been redacted. Given that there are approximately 230 items that the Department must compile and review, this will impose an onerous burden on the Department, which will have to devote limited resources to review these records. In light of the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, as well as 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. Conclusion As described above, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days. Please note, Attorney Nosal 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: Jed Nosal, Esq.