Nicholas Laudani v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252357)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 26, 2025 SPR25/2357 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Nicholas 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 July 16, 2025, Mr. Laudani requested the following records: ... any and all records related to two formal submissions [Mr. Laudani] made to the Boston Landmarks Commission and/or City of Boston: [1] A Motion to Nullify submitted on or about July 1, 2025; and [2] A revised Motion to Nullify submitted on or about July 4, 2025. The City responded on July 16, 2025 and July 18, 2025, and provided the request reference number R003635-071625. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Laudani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2357, 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 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 SPR25/2357 Page 2 August 26, 2025 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 July 16th and July 18th responses In its July 16, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of the request. In its July 18, 2025 response, the City responded to Mr. Laudani, stating that the records responsive to his request had been upload to the City’s Public Records Center and provided him with a link to access the Records Center. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Laudani states, “[t]he Custodian has not produced complete records responsive to my request or has produced records in a manner that omits or truncates responsive content.” Based on Mr. Laundani’s claims, in conjunction with the City’s response, it is unclear if the City possesses any additional records responsive to his request. 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). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether any additional responsive records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Laudani 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. Laudani may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Grace Jung SPR25/2357 Page 3 August 26, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Laudani