David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20252508)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 8, 2025 SPR25/2508 David Shapiro, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Somerville – Law Department 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Shapiro: I have received the petition of David Chritson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 5, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested the following: [1] [A]ll “public records”… beginning from July 19, 2021 to the present date, made or received by SPD and related in any way to [identified individual][;] [2] [A]ll public records related to [identified individual] beginning from July 19, 2021 to the present date, made or received by any or all personnel listed in the SPD rosters dated 2023[;] [3] [A]ll public records related to [identified individual], beginning from July 19, 2021 to the present date, in the custody of, accessible by, or made, or received by [identified Somerville Police Department Units][;] [4] [A]ll public records related to [identified individual] beginning from July 19, 2021 to the present date, (1.) related to, (2.) located in, (3.) made to, or (4.) received from [identified entities]. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/1135 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 7, 2025) and SPR25/1298 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 21, 2025). In my May 21st determination, I ordered the City to clarify whether it possessed records responsive to Mr. Chritson’s request. Subsequently, the City responded on June 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2508, was opened as a result. 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

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/2508 Page 2 September 8, 2025 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. 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson argues the following: This appeal challenges the City of Somerville’s assertion, in its June 5, 2025 response, that David Chritson’s April 5, 2025 public records request was “excessively broad” and “not permitted by the [Public Records Law].” . . . This request does not require non-lawyers to interpret scope. It requires straightforward keyword searches, CAD lookups, and pulling finite audio and incident files. It does not require subjective interpretation. Thus, the City’s reliance on Chawla to deny the detailed request is unlawful. . . . Under G.L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and 950 CMR 32.06(1)(b), a requester need only provide a “reasonable description.” The law does not allow custodians to declare a request “too broad” when the subject, timeframe, custodians, and categories are explicitly stated. The City’s June 5th Response In its June 5, 2025 response, the City states the following: It is the position of the City of Somerville that your request does not comply with the Public Records Law (PRL), G.L. c. 66 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00. Your request is excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by the PRL. The

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/2508 Page 3 September 8, 2025 Supervisor of Public Records requires that public records requests must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). . . . It is unclear with “sufficient particularity” which records you seek. Your entire 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 ‘[regarding]’ the category of materials requested.” Chawla [v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk Superior Court No. 1784CV02087 (1/23/2019)], at 2. For instance, your request for records from “individuals and entities associated with” or for “persons listed below and associated individuals, agents and entities …” is so broad in scope that we are unable to search for responsive records. Regarding your request for all records “in the custody of, accessible by, or made or received by: 1) SPD Criminal Investigation Unit; 2) SPD Family Services Unit, 3) SPD General Investigation Unit; 4. SPD Community Action Team,” please see the email to you dated 3-21-2024 in which we informed you there is no special file in the Detective’s Unit of the Somerville Police Department pertaining to you. We will verify with the Somerville Police Department that they have no special file pertaining to you in any of their units. With regard to your request for audio transmissions and recordings, you have previously been informed that the police officer in charge of searching and downloading 911 calls and radio transmission estimates it will take approximately 6 to 8 hours to search for the incidents, locate the relevant 911 calls and radio transmissions, and download the audio recordings related to the dates listed in your request at J(7) (a) and (b): 5/3/2023, 5/4/2023, 5/8/2023, 10/9/2023, 10/10/2023, 10/11/2023 and 11/5/2023. You were provided with a fee estimate in the amount of $100.00 for those records. (See our email to you dated 4/18/2025). Reasonable Description of Records Sought Mr. Chritson is advised that a request for records must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, 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 judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” (emphasis in original). Id. 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.

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/2508 Page 4 September 8, 2025 L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Based on the Mr. Chritson’s written request for records and based on the information provided in the appeal petition, I find it is unclear what specific records Mr. Chritson is seeking. Accordingly, if Mr. Chritson seeks specific records, he may wish to clarify his written request in order to reasonably describe the requested records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Chritson wishes to submit an additional public records request to the City, and is unsatisfied with the response, he may appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson