Robert O'Brien v. Malden, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20252758)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 24, 2025 SPR25/2758 Joanne Perperian Public Records Access Officer City of Malden Office of the City Solicitor 215 Pleasant Street, Suite 420 Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: On September 18, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Malden (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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 City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Robert O’Brien. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 10, 2025, Mr. O’Brien requested “[a]ll records that’s possible such as the body cam footage and the written police report pertaining to the incident that occurred on September 9, 2025 at approximately 4pm on [an identified address] in Malden, MA.” The City provided a partial response on September 10, 2025. 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; (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; 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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2758 Page 2 September 24, 2025 (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 City requests “an additional 30 business days beyond the time specified under the statute (25 business days).” In support of its request, the City provides the following information: [G]iven the broad scope of the request and the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the City submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Therefore, the City hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. [A]dditionally, the employee who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process have many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The City will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2758 Page 3 September 24, 2025 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 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4).

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2758 Page 4 September 24, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, the City requests “to charge a fee to produce the records sought, as set forth below, because the responsive records contain documents that would qualify under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law and will require detailed review and redaction prior to production.” In support of its request, the City provides the following information: [E]xemption (c), commonly referred to as the privacy exemption applies to: personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). In terms of the second clause of the privacy exemption, it applies to requests for records that implicate privacy interests. Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of the Real Property Dep’t of Boston, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). [E]xemption (f), commonly referred to as the Investigatory Exemption applies to: Investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. Under Massachusetts Law (MGL c. 4, § 7(26)(f)), Exemption (f) protects certain records from being made public. Releasing such documents could put private citizens who volunteer as a witness at risk if they are directly or indirectly identified. The public policy concerns that support this exemption include “the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation.” Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. at 62. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). -- Conclusion As described above, I find that the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Accordingly, I find the City has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the City to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner.

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2758 Page 5 September 24, 2025 Please note, Mr. O’Brien 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: Robert O’Brien