Brian DeLacey v. Malden, City of (SPR 20252612)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2025 SPR25/2612 Kathleen Manning Hall Records Access Officer City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Manning Hall: I have received the petition of Brian DeLacey, of the 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 August 19, 2025, Mr. DeLacey requested: …emails, texts, letters, RFPs, bids, quotes, statements, requests, authorizations, contracts, MOUs, MOAs, memorandum, forms, applications, purchase orders, bills, payments, vendor or account records, evaluation, corporate filings, ratings, recommendations, as well as other similar business records, agreements, purchasing/procurement documents with any variation on the following text phrases “pest services” or “pest management” or “pest prevention” or simply “pest” or “pests”. Additionally, please provide any records not covered which including any common variation of the name “Modern Pest Control”, “Anticimex”, “EQT AB” or any text including “@modernpest.com”. In particular, please include any record involving any cityofmalden.org email address which sent or received email including any the common variations of that name in the any email subject, header, body, attachment or other message or media format. This request is for records from 1/1/25 to the date you received this request. The records provided should be signed, stamped, dated official public records of the City. The City responded on September 2, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. DeLacey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2612, 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

Kathleen Manning Hall SPR25/2612 Page 2 September 12, 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. See 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. See 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 September 2nd Response In its September 2, 2025 response, the City stated, “[y]our request does not comply with the Public Records Law (PRL). Your request is excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by the PRL.” In support of this contention, the City cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087 (January 23, 2019), stating: The Supervisor of the Public Records requires that public records requests must reasonably describe the records sought…In accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and the Chawla decision…it is unclear with ‘sufficient particularity’ which records you seek. Thus, your 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, at 2. Therefore, your request is not legal and not permitted under the PRL. Current Appeal In his September 3, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. DeLacey objected to the City’s response, stating, “[t]he City of Malden offered no records in response, only a poorly reasoned, raw denial that the ‘request is not legal and not permitted under the PRL.’”

Kathleen Manning Hall SPR25/2612 Page 3 September 12, 2025 Breadth of Request; Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be advised, in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. 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. 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.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records

Kathleen Manning Hall SPR25/2612 Page 4 September 12, 2025 regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Based on a review of Mr. DeLacey’s request, this office finds that his request is very broad in scope. Additionally, consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that language seeking twenty-eight (28) categories of records containing “any variation” upon eight (8) different search terms does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. DeLacey may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. DeLacey has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Mr. DeLacey and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. 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 Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. DeLacey is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office share jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian DeLacey