Nicholas Laudani v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252715)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 25, 2025 SPR25/2715 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Nicholas Laudani appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 16, 2025, Ms. Laudani requested “…any and all records related to two formal submissions I made to the Boston Landmarks Commission and/or City of Boston: [1] A Motion to Nullify submitted on or about July 1, 2025[;] [2] A Revised Motion to Nullify submitted on or about July 4, 2025[;] Specifically, I am requesting the following: [3] Any documentation confirming receipt of either submission; [4] Any email or internal correspondence related to these motions; [5] Any internal discussion, docketing, staff review, meeting preparation, or responses associated with these filings.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2357 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 26, 2025). In my August 26th determination, I found the City must clarify whether any additional responsive records exist. The City responded on September 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Laudani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2715, 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

Grace Jung ` SPR25/2715 Page 2 September 25, 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. 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. Identity or Status of Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Mr. Laudani’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. Whereas, Mr. Laudani seeks the record for a court process, he may have a unique right of access to the records through statutory, regulatory, judicial or other applicable means. See Commonwealth v. Wanis, 426 Mass. 639 (1998). As such, Mr. Laudani may wish to consider another means of seeking to obtain any existing responsive records. The City’s September 5th Response In its September 5, 2025 response, the City stated, “[w]e have reached out to the department and they have confirmed that we have released all responsive records and have not redacted any records in this request. Additionally, the records that were released to Mr. Laudani have been attached to this email.”

Grace Jung ` SPR25/2715 Page 3 September 25, 2025 Current appeal In his September 11, 2025 appeal, Mr. Laudani states “[t]o date, the City has not provided the emails I requested. Using the identifier ‘R003635-071625’, there should be responsive intra-City communications. In fact, an email dated [July 1, 2025] from Director of Preservation forwarding my filing to at least four additional staff members appears in the materials the City transmitted to you. That thread, on its face, indicates additional responsive emails exist but were not produced to me.” Upon review, it appears that Mr. Laudani’s request relates to his pending litigation in Suffolk Superior Court. See Laudani v. City of Boston, Docket number 2584CV02171. Conclusion In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Laudani