Jaehyun Kim v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252677)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 19, 2025 SPR25/2677 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Jaehyun Kim, appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 6, 2025 Mr. Kim requested the following “records created, received, or maintained by BPD or BRIC from January 1, 2021 to the present: [1] All documents, reports, notes, memoranda, or electronic records (including emails, texts, or internal messaging) referencing or containing my name, Jaehyun Kim, or any of my personal identifiers. [2] All BRIC intelligence bulletins, investigative reports, or memoranda referencing me, including the activity number P250193895. [3] All communications between BRIC/BPD and external agencies (including DHS, ICE, FBI, or other state/federal law enforcement) referencing or concerning me. [4] Any records of surveillance, monitoring, investigatory logs, or case files that reference me. [5] All drafts, revisions, and deleted versions of the above categories, to the extent they are preserved. The Department responded on September 8, 2025 and assigned the request Reference number B002492-090625. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Kim petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2677, 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 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2677 Page 2 September 19, 2025 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. 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Kim states “I hereby appeal the Boston Police Department’s denial of my September 6, 2025 Public Records Request… I respectfully request that your office order the Boston Police Department to [c]onduct a reasonable search for responsive records; [p]roduce all non-exempt, segregable portions; and [p]rovide a written index of withheld material with statutory exemptions cited.” The Department’s September 8th response In its September 8, 2025 response, the Department stated, “Friedman (103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 2024) has helpful language that can be relied upon by records custodians. Relying on Globe Newspaper Co. v. Commissioner of Educ., 439 Mass. 124, 129‐30 (2003), the Appeals Court in Friedman noted that “[n]otwithstanding its breadth, however, the public records law does not require public agencies simply to provide the requested records no matter the burden imposed, nor does it require public agencies to shunt aside their principal public functions to do so. Rather, a rule of reason governs both the obligation of public agencies to respond to and to provide records, and also the conduct of requestors of public documents. Your request for records is denied.” Breadth of Request; Reasonable Description of Records Sought Based on a review of Mr. Kim’s request, this office finds that his request is very broad in scope. 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.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2677 Page 3 September 19, 2025 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 another 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). This office encourages Mr. Kim and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The Department 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 If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Kim and the Department communicate further as described above, Mr. Kim may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2677 Page 4 September 19, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jaehyun Kim