Michael Lewis v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20252655)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2025 SPR25/2655 Christopher Smith, Esq. Senior Lead Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Smith: On September 8, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Department/MassDOT) 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Michael Lewis, Esq., of Global Partners LP. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 22, 2025, Attorney Lewis requested: [1] Any written disclosures submitted by a special state employee or a state employee filed with his/her appointing authority or the state ethics commission, pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 268A and concerning or arising from the Request for Proposals issued by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (“MassDOT”) for Bid No. BD-25-1030-CPO1-CPO1-107836 (the “RFP”) and the Proposals received in response thereto, and any written determinations concerning such disclosure[;] [2] All financial disclosure records for the Selection Committee for the RFP and MassDOT Board members for the past 10 years[;] [3] A complete copy of the employee human resources files for each of the following [four identified individuals][;] [4] Any and all records including electronic communications relating to MassDOT’s decision to omit [an identified individual] from participation in the Debriefing meeting held between representatives of MassDOT and Global Partners on August 19, 2025 (the “Debriefing Meeting”). This request should be understood to cover all publicly available records and electronic communications 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

Christopher Smith, Esq. SPR25/2655 Page 2 September 12, 2025 relating to that decision. This request should also be understood to include the “cost/benefit analysis” related to [an identified individual’s] attendance at the Debriefing Meeting, which the Debriefing committee explained to Global Partners had been considered by MassDOT in its decision to omit [an identified individual] from the Debriefing meeting[;] [5] All records related to any internal investigations pending or completed related to the RFP (including, but not limited to all results, notes, memoranda, comments, reports and discovery)[;] [6] All communications related to the Debriefing Meeting, including who was to attend, information to be presented and documentation shared[;] [7] All communications related to [an identified individual’s] appointment to the Selection Committee for the RFP, including when he was asked to join, what was communicated to him about joining and why, according to [an identified individual’s] email communications, he was to remain behind the scenes for a period of time[;] [8] All communications related to the appointment of [an identified individual’s] as Chairman (formally or informally) of the Selection Committee for the RFP[;] [9] Records sufficient to identify any MassDOT contracts awarded in the last 10 years to (i) Suffolk Construction; and/or (ii) Blackstone or its affiliates, in which Scott Bosworth played a role in the procurement process[;] [10] All evaluations and scoring worksheets (and drafts thereof) prepared by the Selection Committee, subject matter experts and MassDOT consultants for the short-listed Proposers in the RFP (other than Applegreen MA Investments LLC and Global Partners LLC)[.] On September 8, 2025, the Department responded by producing records responsive to Item ten, indicating that they had no records responsive to Item two, and sought clarification of Item three. 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;

Christopher Smith, Esq. SPR25/2655 Page 3 September 12, 2025 (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) 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 Department requests an extension of 20 business days and provides the following in support its request: In this instance, the request consists of 10 categories of records spanning 1.5 years to 10 years. This request is part of a series of 7 requests submitted by the requester, consisting of a total of 46 categories of requests. Four of the 10 categories in this request seek “all communications” related to a given topic. This will require MassDOT to run successive e-discovery searches with EOTSS and collect text messages or other messaging information from the cellular devices of several MassDOT officials and employees. Based on the previous six requests and initial searches for this request, there are likely hundreds to thousands of pages of records to review for responsiveness. Once responsive records have been compiled, they will need to be reviewed for exemptions and privilege. MassDOT does not have the capacity to complete such an expansive request without an extension. MassDOT staff has been also working to respond to 681 total public records requests from other parties since the first of the 7 requests was submitted. MassDOT has already begun to compile discretely identified records requested for this request and made an initial rolling production on September 8, 2025, as evidenced by the attached message history. Initial EOTSS searches have also been submitted. To date, MassDOT has already provided complete productions to 30 of

Christopher Smith, Esq. SPR25/2655 Page 4 September 12, 2025 the 46 categories of records requested across all 7 requests from this requester. To date, MassDOT has produced at least 3,688 pages of material, representing several hundred records and approximately 414 megabytes of data across the series of requests. MassDOT has asserted minimal exemptions and privileges, withholding only 114 records in their entirety, all created after award of the contract that is the subject of the requestor’s requests. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension as well as the efforts undertaken by the Department in fulfilling previous and the current requests, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension of 20 business days. Conclusion As described above, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days. I encourage the parties to continue to communicate to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Attorney Lewis 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: Michael Lewis, Esq.