Brian DeLacey v. Malden, City of (SPR 20252608)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2025 SPR25/2608 Joanne Perperian Public Records Access Officer City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: I have received the petition of Brian DeLacey, of Malden News Network, appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 24, 2025, Mr. DeLacey sought the following: …[R]ecords in the form of emails, text messages, uploaded or url-linked files or other documents (including all attachments, PDF files, images or ‘Word’ documents) which were received from, sent to or shared in any way between the Advocate newspaper, any of its owners, employees, contractors, journalists, or reporting team – from 7/1/25 to the date of this request – and Malden City Clerk or any of the following City of Malden employees: [identified individuals]. The City responded on August 5, 2025, August 6, 2025, and August 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. DeLacey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2608, 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. 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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2608 Page 2 September 12, 2025 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 5th, August 6th, and August 7th Responses In both its August 5, 2025 and August 6, 2025 responses, the City asked Mr. DeLacey to “…provide any email addresses and/or names that would fall under the category of ‘emails to/from the Advocate Newspaper, any of its owners, employees, contractors, journalists, or reporting team’” in order to facilitate its search for responsive records. In its August 7, 2025 response, the City provided responsive records and stated, “…it would be helpful if you can provide specific email addresses and/or names pertaining to your request…” Current Appeal In the appeal petition, Mr. DeLacey stated, “[w]hile some files were provided in response… substantive records which we reasonably expected to exist were not included… [T]his appeal seeks a further and more complete response…” In a supplemental email to this office on September 3, 2025, Mr. DeLacey stated: The City’s ‘reverse request’ (for ‘any email addresses and/or names of emails to/from the Advocate Newspaper, any of its owners, employees, contractors, journalists, or reporting team’) appears unreasonable and not honestly based on a meaningful need for clarifying information… MNN did not respond to the request for supplemental information… Malden offered no scope modification nor assistance… In an email to Mr. DeLacey and this office on September 4, 2025, the City reiterated its need for clarification and stated: Our IT Department conducted a search based on the list of staff names provided… This search returned nearly 200 emails… [W]e requested additional details to help narrow the scope of the request. As part of our August 7 response, we sorted the results and provided the emails that included the domain ‘@advocatenews.net’ in their address and referenced my prior emails seeking additional information.

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2608 Page 3 September 12, 2025 In reply to the City on September 5, 2025, Mr. DeLacey stated, “Malden News Network would like to withdraw its appeal… if the City simply provides the ‘nearly 200 emails’... As part of this, we request they provide the search criteria… that effectuated this search result.” In a telephone conversation with this office on September 9, 2025, the City explained that it is unable to conduct a further search without knowing the Advocate Newspaper’s “owners, employees, contractors, journalists, or reporting team,” referenced in the request. The City also stated that it reached out to Mr. DeLacey multiple times for clarification and that many of the 200 emails referenced in its September 4, 2025 email are not responsive to the request. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be advised that a request for public records must reasonably describe the specific records 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. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). This office encourages Mr. DeLacey to communicate directly with the City in order to facilitate providing any remaining records more efficiently and affordably. 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). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. DeLacey and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. DeLacey may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Malden News Network Brian DeLacey