Angelina DePina v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (SPR 20252606)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 10, 2025 SPR25/2606 Ruthy Barros Records Access Officer Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination One Ashburton Place, Room 601 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Barros: On September 3, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (Commission/MCAD) 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, it is my understanding that the Commission furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Angelina DePina. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 20, 2025, Ms. DePina requested: [1] All emails, correspondence, and attachments sent or received by [15 identified Commission employees] relating to Case No. 22BEM00989… This request includes all communications between the [15 identified] employees and Respondent’s counsel: [four identified individuals] or any member of Prince Lobel Tye LLP. [2] All records, notes, or memoranda regarding any extensions, continuances, or accommodations granted to the Respondent or Respondent’s counsel in Case No. 22BEM00989[;] [3] All internal communications discussing compliance with deadlines by both the Complainant and Respondent’s counsel[;] [4] Any records, memoranda, or communications referencing potential or actual conflicts of interest involving Respondent’s counsel or their prior relationship with MCAD[;] [5] Any policies, procedures, or internal guidance documents concerning conflict checks when outside counsel appearing before MCAD has a prior employment 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

Ruthy Barros SPR25/2606 Page 2 September 10, 2025 advisory relationship with the Commission[;] [6] Any policies, procedures, or internal guidance documents concerning conflict checks when outside counsel appearing before MCAD has a prior employment or advisory relationship with the Commission[;] [7] All internal communications or directives assigning, transferring, or reassigning responsibility for Case No. 22BEM00989 among MCAD employees[;] [8] Any documents explaining why multiple employees were assigned to or removed from this case[;] [9] All records, logs, or metadata showing access to, edits of, or updates made in MCAD’s internal case management system regarding Case No. 22BEM00989[;] [10] Any indexes, tracking logs, or administrative records showing communications or decisions made by the above-named employees. Please note that in an email to this Office on September 4, 2025, Ms. DePina objected to the Commission’s petition. Concurrent Petition This request is the subject of a separate petition submitted by the Commission. See SPR25/2626. A determination will be issued separately concerning that petition within five (5) business days of receipt of the petition. Petition 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 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

Ruthy Barros SPR25/2606 Page 3 September 10, 2025 (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) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its petition, the Commission requests an extension of 17 business days and provides the following in support of its request: MCAD requires additional time due to the relative size, scope, and complexity of the request, which seeks a broad range of records including case closure determinations, internal reviews, and extensive communications among multiple parties. An email search must be coordinated with the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (EOTSS), which provides email and data services to the Commission and adds time to retrieval and export. EOTSS is outside the control of the MCAD, and the MCAD is limited by EOTSS’s ability to conduct the search and provide potentially responsive data. The requested categories span multiple staff custodians (at least 15 custodians) and systems and require coordinated searches and de-duplication. MCAD must review for applicable exemption under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26), including but not limited to attorney work product and privileged internal deliberations, and must produce all segregable, non-exempt portions. Records must be reviewed and redacted where necessary for personal privacy, minor identifiers, and medical information. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Commission to produce the records without an extension, the Commission has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Commission is granted an extension of 17 business days.

Ruthy Barros SPR25/2606 Page 4 September 10, 2025 Conclusion As described above, I find that the Commission has established good cause for a time extension of 17 business days. Please note, Ms. DePina 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: Angelina DePina