Luis Fieldman v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252329)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 21, 2025 SPR25/2329 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell I have received the petition of Luis Fieldman, of MassLive, appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 1, 2025, Mr. Fieldman requested, “... all internal affairs records for [an identified] Boston Police Department Sgt. He’s served the department since Jan. 1991, and I am looking for all records related to internal affairs. This record request includes, but is not limited to, the interviews, the reports, the conclusions and recommendations, and the documenting of its results to the complaining party.” The Department provided a response on July 1, 2025 and July 28, 2025, assigning the request reference number B00l 794-070125. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Fieldman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2329, 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. Att’y 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 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2329 Page 2 August 21, 2025 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 Department’s July 1st and July 28th Responses In its July 1, 2025 response, the Department acknowledged the request. In its July 28, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[w]e have your records request. Unfortunately, I was out of the office on unplanned medical leave and just returned today. I will check and see what the status of your request is.” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Fieldman states, “[a]s of Aug. 11, we are outside the 10-day response window. The records department within Boston has not requested additional time to respond to this request.” 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Fieldman’s request was originally submitted on July 1, 2025, and the Department has not provided responsive records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2329 Page 3 August 21, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Fieldman with a response, 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. Fieldman may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Luis Fieldman