Patrick N. Bryant v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252356)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 25, 2025 SPR25/2356 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Patrick Bryant, 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 July 25, 2025, Attorney Bryant requested the following: [1.] [A]ll communications, including email and text messages, pertaining to the cadet program, including hiring, training and standards, from January 1, 2022 to present, and emails about the current Fire Academy class, including hiring, appointment, qualifications, and recommendations, from or to any of the following individuals: [list of 13 named individuals] [2.] [A]ll standards, guides, or memos discussing or determining how cadets satisfy the requirements of the cadet program and become eligible for appointment as a Boston Firefighter pursuant to Chapter 242 of the Acts of 2020[.] The City responded on August 11, 2025, and assigned tracking number R003423-070725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney Bryant petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2356, 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 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 SPR25/2356 Page 2 August 25, 2025 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. 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 August 11th Response In its August 11, 2025 response, the City states that Item 1 of the request “is overly broad and vague” and that it “will provide an update as soon as possible” for Item 2 of the request. In his appeal petition, Attorney Bryant states that “I appeal the denial of the public records request.” He goes on to state that “I do plan to submit a new request, but wish to file this appeal nonetheless.” Item 1 With regard to Item 1 of the request, in its August 11th response, the City argues the following: The first part 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). . . . The request requires City public records personnel to review records and make document-by-document determinations about which are “pertaining to” or “about” the topics listed. This is overly broad because your request “calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘[pertaining to]’ the category of materials requested.” Chawla, at 2. Finally, if the City was able to determine the records requested with reasonable particularity, it is likely based on your current request that it would be necessary to charge a fee estimate given the large volume of potential records. Any and all documents and/or information that is requested may involve a significant volume of records, including records containing information that must be redacted before

Grace Jung SPR25/2356 Page 3 August 25, 2025 the records can be released. Reasonable Description of the Records Sought Attorney Bryant is advised that the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). 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). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgements about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). This office encourages Attorney Bryant and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Attorney Bryant may consider narrowing the scope of his request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. 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). Accordingly, if Mr. Bryant wishes to submit another public records request to the City as outlined above, and is unsatisfied with the response, he may again appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Item 2 In its August 11th response, with regard to Item 2 of the request, the City states that “we are still looking into Part 2 of your request and will provide an update as soon as possible.” Timeframe for Providing Records The City is advised that G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business

Grace Jung SPR25/2356 Page 4 August 25, 2025 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 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 Attorney Bryant submitted his request on July 25, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the 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 Bryant 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 Bryant may further 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: Patrick Bryant, Esq.