MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20252824)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 09-25-2025

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20252824 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by David Webb concerning records held by Worcester, City of, opened 09-25-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20252824
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
David Webb
Custodian
Worcester, City of
Date Opened
09-25-2025
Date Closed
10-07-2025

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 7, 2025 SPR25/2824 Michael Vigneux Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Vigneux: I have received the petition of David Webb appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 3, 2025, Mr. Webb requested “[t]he BWC from the SWAT officer involved in chasing and capturing the man who ran away from them on [a specified street] 9/3/25, as well as the footage from [an identified officer who] was holding a gray backpack.” The City responded on September 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2824, 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 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. 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

Michael Vigneux SPR25/2824 Page 2 October 7, 2025 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. The City’s September 8th Response In its September 8, 2025 response, the City produced a responsive video recording, redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Webb states, “I asked the records department to please provide the footage from the SWAT officer, as initially requested, it seems he’s also the one who searched through the backpack I referenced, but they have not provided a response, or the requested record.” Mr. Webb did not object to the City’s redactions under Exemption (c). Based on Mr. Webb’s claims, in conjunction with the City’s response, it is unclear if the City possesses any additional records responsive to the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether any additional responsive records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Webb with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Webb may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb Janice E. Thompson, Esq.