Craig Anderson v. Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical School (SPR 20252557)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 4, 2025 SPR25/2557 Lyndsey B. Davis, Esq. Counsel Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical School 565 Maple Street Danvers, MA 01923 Dear Attorney Davis: On August 27, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical School (School/District) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the School furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Craig Anderson. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 14, 2025, Mr. Anderson requested the following: 1. Course-Specific Records All documents related to the “Services Leadership I – Grade 11 Pathway” course, including but not limited to [a list of approximately six sub-categories.] 2. Broader Curriculum & Instructional Materials All records, instructional materials, presentations, lesson plans, professional development materials, internal memoranda, policies, handouts, outside speaker materials, or other documents that reference or include any of the following keywords, individuals, organizations, or programs [list of approximately 28 sub- categories.] This request seeks all records created, received, or maintained from January 1, 2020 to present. Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there 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

Lyndsey B. Davis, Esq. SPR25/2557 Page 2 September 4, 2025 has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the School requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: On June 23, 2025, the District provided an initial response to Mr. Anderson’s request with a fee estimate. On July 10, 2025, Mr. Anderson mailed a check in the amount of the estimate, which did not clear until July 31. Following receipt of payment, the District began its preliminary search of potentially responsive records. On August 15, 2025, the District informed Mr. Anderson that a preliminary search for the keyword “diversity” alone returned approximately 25,000 results and asked that he consider narrowing the breadth and scope of his request. To date, Mr. Anderson has not responded to this request. On August 21, 2025, the District provided a revised fee estimate based on its preliminary search results. The scope and volume of Mr. Anderson’s request is extraordinary. The District has identified approximately 200,000 records potentially responsive to the request. The District estimates that the collection, review, and production of these

Lyndsey B. Davis, Esq. SPR25/2557 Page 3 September 4, 2025 records would require more than 5,000 staff hours. This volume is not only unusually burdensome in magnitude but also presents significant practical difficulties for the District. With more than 200,000 potentially responsive documents, the task of identifying, reviewing, redacting (where necessary), and producing these records far exceeds what can reasonably be completed within the statutory timeframe. The District’s staff must balance their responsibilities to respond to public records requests with their core obligations to manage and oversee educational services, student support, and daily operations. Diverting staff time to review and process thousands of documents would compromise the District’s ability to meet its other responsibilities to students, parents, and the community. Because of the magnitude and the undue burden of this request, the District respectfully requests an additional 30 business days to respond. Without such an extension, the District cannot balance its legal obligations under the Public Records Law with its essential responsibilities to the school community. In an email to this office and the School on August 28, 2025, Mr. Anderson states the following: As the requester, I wanted to clarify that I will not be asking the District to process 200,000 records totaling ~5,000 hours as framed. I’ve been preparing detailed execution parameters this week to reduce cost & scope of review without changing the request. I’m sending those to the District today & will approve production only after I receive post-culling hit counts & granular estimates. I do not oppose a brief extension if it’s conditioned on the District providing, within 5 business days, (1) post-culling hit counts, (2) the exact search strings/filters to be used, & (3) separate granular estimates for Phase 1 (non- email) & Phase 2 (email attachments-only), each with search vs. review/redaction breakdown at the lowest-paid capable employee rate. No production should begin until I approve those in writing. I will send the execution details directly to the District & copy counsel. Conclusion In light of Mr. Anderson’s August 28th email, I find it unnecessary to opine on the School’s petition for an extension of time. This office encourages the School and Mr. Anderson to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Anderson may consider narrowing the scope of his request to enable the School to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The School must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any

Lyndsey B. Davis, Esq. SPR25/2557 Page 4 September 4, 2025 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). Please note, Mr. Anderson has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Craig Anderson