Lucas Newbill v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252307)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 15, 2025 SPR25/2307 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 Lucas Newbill, Esq. 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 14, 2025, Attorney Newbill sought the following: [1] Copies of all public records from May 14, 2025, through May 21, 2025, containing the name [of an identified individual]; [2] Copies of all public records from May 14, 2025, through May 21, 2025, containing the name [of an identified individual]; [3] Copies of all public records from May 14, 2025, through June 13, 2025, referencing [an identified individual] between any City official or employee and Emerge Massachusetts (https://ma.emergeamerica.org/) or any Board Member, executive, agent, or representative thereof; and [4] Copies of all public records from May 14, 2025, through May 17, 2025, between any Boston police officer and [an identified individual] or any representative thereof. There exists reason to believe that someone within the Boston Police Department leaked a police report of [an identified individual] to the Howie Carr Show. Please produce any such communication, document, or electronically stored information. The City responded on June 16 and July 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Attorney Newbill petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2307, 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 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 SPR25/2307 Page 2 August 15, 2025 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 16th and July 1st Responses In its June 16, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of Attorney Newbill’s request, assigning the request reference number R003065-061625. In its July 1, 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.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Attorney Newbill states, “[t]o date, the City has failed to respond, and have blown through their requested extension (see attached).” Timeliness in providing records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein.

Grace Jung SPR25/2307 Page 3 August 15, 2025 G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Attorney Newbill submitted his request on June 14, 2025, and the City has not provided the responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find that the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Newbill 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. Attorney Newbill 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: Lucas Newbill, Esq.