Brian Ratcliffe v. Taunton, City of - Law Department (SPR 20252176)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 7, 2025 SPR25/2176 Lisa Bond, Esq. First Assistant City Solicitor City of Taunton, Law Department 15 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Attorney Bond: I have received the petition of Brian Ratcliffe appealing the response of the City of Taunton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 17, 2025, Mr. Ratcliffe submitted the following request: I am doing a freedom of information act on how much the city spent on lawyer fees to defend the civil lawsuit brought to the city of Taunton By [a named individual] for unlawful termination, and violation of his first amendment rights. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1886 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 10, 2025). In my July 10th determination, I closed SPR25/1886 based on my understanding that the City had provided a supplemental response to Mr. Ratcliffe. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Ratcliffe petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2176, 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). 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

Lisa Bond, Esq. SPR25/2176 Page 2 August 7, 2025 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. 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 correspondence included with his appeal petition, Mr. Ratcliffe argues the following: I am looking to determine how much the city of Taunton spent on legal fees for my legal case against the city, I know the city used a Boston law firm, and this law firm may be used for many legal issues in the city of Taunton. However, this law firm must bill the city for each specific case they work on, and so the legal bills from this law firm pertaining to my case would be the “responsive documents” needed. . . . I know that legal bills were incurred by the City of Taunton to defend itself in my case, and these bills exist in document form. The City of Taunton used a Boston law firm in my case . . . and either the City of Taunton or this law firm have the legal bills associated with my case. All I am asking is for copies of these legal bills, so that I may determine how much the city spent on legal fees to prosecute my case. The City’s June 24th Response In its June 24, 2025 response, the City states that “to date, the City of Taunton has no responsive documents.” Agency Relationship Please be 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). Additionally, public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). The City is advised that where a public entity contracts with a third party to fulfill its public duties, and the public entity exercises control over that third party, an agency relationship

Lisa Bond, Esq. SPR25/2176 Page 3 August 7, 2025 is created. See Fifty-one Hispanic Residents of Chelsea v. Sch. Comm. of Chelsea, 421 Mass. 598, 607 (1996) (while subject to control of a public entity as a principal for purposes of performing public duties, private university is a public agent). Wherever a record custodian keeps original public records in a location other than the government building, the custodian has a duty to make the public records available in a location convenient to the general public for inspection and copying. In this case, where the City appears to have contracted with a third party to act as an agent on behalf of the City, it is unclear whether the records for the City’s agents were searched. As such, I find that the City must provide additional information detailing its search in order to determine if the City has met its burden under G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii) to provide records that are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Ratcliffe 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. Ratcliffe may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian Ratcliffe