Angelina DePina v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (SPR 20252626)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 10, 2025 SPR25/2626 Ruthy Barros Records Access Officer Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination One Ashburton Place, Room 601 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Barros: On September 4, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (Commission), seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive 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 Department 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 SPR25/2626 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 [identified] employees. Please note that in an email to this Office on September 5, 2025, Ms. DePina objected to the Commission’s petition. Prior Petition This request was the subject of a prior time petition submitted by the Commission. See SPR25/2606 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 10, 2024). In my September 10th determination, I found that the Commission had established good cause for an extension of seventeen (17) business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The

Ruthy Barros SPR25/2626 Page 3 September 10, 2025 first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the Commission argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law: Privacy Exemption (G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) - The documents requested contain or may contain personal identifying information, such as non-public mailing addresses, social security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and other information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the privacy exemption. Investigatory Materials Exemption (G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f) – The documents requested may include complainant names and materials related to cases pending before the MCAD that will require redaction under this exemption. The Investigatory Materials Exemption exempts from disclosure investigatory

Ruthy Barros SPR25/2626 Page 4 September 10, 2025 materials that if disclosed would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. In light of the Commission’s petition, I find the Commission has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Commission may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Commission has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without segregation or redaction. I encourage Ms. DePina and the Commission to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Ms. DePina may appeal the Commission’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). 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