Mark W. Corner v. Norfolk, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252247)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 11, 2025 SPR25/2247 Judith Lizardi Executive Assistant Town Administrator’s Office Town of Norfolk One Liberty Lane Norfolk, MA 02056 Dear Ms. Lizardi: I have received the petition of Mark W. Corner, Esq., of O’Hagan Meyer, appealing the response of the Town of Norfolk (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 20, 2025, Attorney Corner requested: [1] All public records concerning communications between any person on the one hand and any department, or any elected or appointed board, of the Town of Norfolk concerning the property located at . . . Park Street, including but not limited to such communications with the Building Department, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Department and/or Town Counsel[;] [2] All public records concerning or identifying [an identified individual] and/or Miles of Excavating[;] [3] All public records concerning [an identified individual] including public records concerning communications between [an identified individual] and any town employee or elected or appointed official of the Town. Previous Petition and Reconsideration This request was the subject of a previous petition and reconsideration. See SPR25/1971 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (July 11, 2025; August 6, 2025). In my July 11th determination, I found that the requested records were the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Norfolk Superior Court and declined to opine on the Town’s petition. In my August 6th determination, I declined to reverse my findings. 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

Judith Lizardi SPR25/2247 Page 2 August 11, 2025 The Town responded on July 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Attorney Corner petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2247, was opened as a result. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality 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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first (two) 2 hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 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). The Town’s July 8th Response In its July 8, 2025 response, the Town stated that the property identified in the request was the subject of active litigation in Norfolk County Superior Court. The Town further indicated that it planned to provide Attorney Corner with an itemized fee estimate. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in the Norfolk Superior Court. See Dianne Dziurdz v. David Axberg, (Superior Court Docket No. 2282CV01032); see also Robert J. Bullock, Jr. v. Dianne Dziurdz, (Superior Court Docket No. 2382CV00226). Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.

Judith Lizardi SPR25/2247 Page 3 August 11, 2025 In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mark W. Corner, Esq.