Nick Laudani v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252283)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 15, 2025 SPR25/2283 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Nick Laudani appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) 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, Mr. Laudani sought the following for “the proposed development at 1 Elmwood Street”: [1] The complete written minutes from the HPACDC meeting on September 26, 2024[;] [2] Any-all-staff reports, votes, or determinations made during that meeting regarding the proposal[;] [3] Any findings or documentation showing how the project was evaluated under M.G.L. c. 40C, §7[;] [4] Any precedent projects or comparative examples cited to justify compatibility with the Highland Park ACD’s architectural landscape[;] [5] The complete minutes and outcomes of the May 22, 2025 HPACDC meeting, including the ratification of the September 26, 2024 minutes[;] [6] Any communications, permits, or approvals issued by the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) related to this projecting, including: [a] A timeline of approvals or permitting actions[;] [b] Any coordination with HPACDC[;] [c] Any evidence showing BPDA withheld action pending HPACDC review and approval, as required for projects in conservation districts[;] [7] The statutory or regulatory provisions – whether established by ordinance, state law, or interagency procedures – that define the authority, approval sequence, and limitations between the BPDA and HPACDC, particularly regarding new construction within the Highland Park ACD[;] 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

Grace Jung SPR25/2283 Page 2 August 15, 2025 [8] Any staff analysis, commission findings, or written justification supporting a conclusion that this project complies with M.G.L. c. 40C, §7…[;] [9] Any documentation showing how the project’s height, design, massing, and materials align with the HPACD Design Guidelines…[;] [10] Please show a document that refutes BBDA approved before the HPACD[;] [11] Please show documentation of the 700 or even 300 signatures entered into the record[;] [12] Please show the bylaws that are required to actually affectively enforce any of the standing of the decision making process that was used to concimate [sic] this process… The City responded on June 20, July 7, and July 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Laudani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2283, 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). 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. See 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 City’s June 20th, July 7th, and July 15th Responses In its June 20, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of Mr. Laudani’s request, assigning the reference number R003148-062025. In its July 7, 2025 response, the City stated, “[d]ue to the nature of your request, additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to, but no more than, fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process your request.” In its July 15, 2025 response, the City provided responsive records and stated the following:

Grace Jung SPR25/2283 Page 3 August 15, 2025 Parts of your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Furthermore, there is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024)… Here, you seek records showing how the referenced project was evaluated, examples, evidence, coordinations, and timelines…Your request does not contain enough information and does not provide specification as to what records you seek. Names of the documents, dates, key words for the search, and email addresses would be needed to conduct a thorough search. Since this information is not provided, a government employee has no way of reasonably identifying the records you seek without conducting an unreasonable amount of research… Current Appeal In his August 5, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Laudani requested that the City be ordered to produce responsive records. Breadth of Request; Reasonable Description of Records Sought Based on a review of Mr. Laudani’s request, this office finds that his request is very broad in scope. Please be advised, in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents;

Grace Jung SPR25/2283 Page 4 August 15, 2025 (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). This office encourages Mr. Laudani and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Laudani and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. Laudani may 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: Nick Laudani