David Stoff v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20252250)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 14, 2025 SPR25/2250 Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 7760 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: I have received the petition of David Stoff appealing the response of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 19, 2025, Mr. Stoff requested, “…any public records in the MBTA’s possession regarding ground water in the vicinity of the MBTA’s Alewife Station, including tracks, or tunnels appurtenant to the Alewife Station.” Specifically, Mr. Stoff sought: [1] Any records about groundwater quality; [2] Any records about ground water management; [3] Any records about ground water discharges[.] In his request, Mr. Stoff also provided the MBTA with examples of the types of records that would be responsive to his request. The MBTA responded on July 7, 2025 and July 22, 2025, assigning the request reference number R000770-062325. Unsatisfied with the MBTA’s responses, Mr. Stoff petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2250, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, an attorney for the MBTA provided a supplemental response on August 13, 2025. 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

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR25/2250 Page 2 August 14, 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. The MBTA’s July 7th and July 22nd Responses In its July 7, 2025 response, the MBTA provided Mr. Stoff with two responsive records. In a reply email to the MBTA, Mr. Stoff stated, “[t]hese records [were] cited in the initial Records Request for information purposes… I had hoped that more records would be produced by the MBTA. At this time I consider your response incomplete… I am willing to work with the MBTA to identify responsive records.” In its July 22, 2025 response, an attorney for the MBTA stated, “…I wanted to confirm that the relevant records custodians took the entirety of your request into consideration when conducting a search for responsive records. I will relay your message to them and confirm that the MBTA’s response is complete.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Stoff stated: …I acknowledge that the scope of the initial records request was very broad. However, the public records law provides appropriate mechanisms to narrow the focus of wide ranging requests for public records… It is simply not credible for the MBTA to assert that there have been no maintenance reports, or studies about water leaking into the station or tunnels, for 40 years. It is also not credible to believe that an underground transit station was constructed without extensive investigation of ground water conditions. In a conversation with this office on August 7, 2025, an attorney for the MBTA stated that they were waiting to hear back from one final MBTA employee to confirm whether or not any additional responsive records exist. In a supplemental response provided to this office on August 13, 2025, an attorney for the MBTA stated, “…so far, we do not have any additional responsive records to provide to the requestor.”

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR25/2250 Page 3 August 14, 2025 Based on the information provided in Mr. Stoff’s appeal petition and the MBTA’s responses, it is unclear whether MBTA possesses additional records responsive to Mr. Stoff’s request, other than the two records that were provided. 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). To the extent that additional records exist, I find the MBTA must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. The MBTA must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the MBTA is ordered to provide Mr. Stoff with a response to his 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. Stoff may appeal the substantive nature of the MBTA’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Stoff