Emma Rindlisbacher v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (SPR 20252856)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 3, 2025 SPR25/2856 Sean Calnan, Esq. Senior Counsel Massachusetts Development Finance Agency 1350 Main Street, Suite 200 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Calnan: On September 29, 2025, this office received a petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (Agency) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the Agency furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Emma Rindlisbacher. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 16, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested the following records from the period “between [J]an 1, 2022 and the date the search is conducted[:]” [A]ll text messages between [two identified individuals]. . . . Please take an expansive view of the definition of text messages and include both text messages through cell phone telecom as well as text messages through messaging apps (whatsapp, signal, etc). Please note that in an email to this office and the Agency on October 1, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher objected to the Agency’s petition. Petitions 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 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

Sean Calnan, Esq. SPR25/2856 Page 2 October 3, 2025 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Agency requests, “an extension of . . . twenty (20) business days for the Agency to furnish copies of certain requested records, or any portions of the requested records, that the Agency has within its possession, custody or control and intends to furnish in response to the request[.]” In support of its request, the Agency explains the following: It should also be noted that in addition to the current request, the same requestor has previously sent a series of six (6) other records requests regarding the same general subject matter. The Agency has complied with all six (6) of the previous requests and furnished documents within the requirements mandated by M.G.L. c. 66, however, the repeated requests have taken up an inordinate amount of staff time and capacity and have imposed an undue burden on other responsibilities of members of the Agency to efficiently address other customer needs. The current request regarding text messages adds additional complexities regarding the coordination and potential retrieval of hardware and additional Informational Technology capacity. While we are currently seeking to identify and collect responsive records, the number of records to be retrieved and reviewed over a four-year period is currently unknown, as is the necessary scope of redaction to avoid unlawful disclosure. We will not be able to complete this request within the time provided in clause (vi) of subsection (b), while simultaneously facing some of the highest volume of other Agency business related to recent approvals.

Sean Calnan, Esq. SPR25/2856 Page 3 October 3, 2025 Based on the Agency’s petition, I find that in light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, the capacity of the Agency to produce the request without the extension, and efforts undertaken by the Agency in fulfilling the current request and previous requests, the Agency has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Agency is granted an extension of 20 business days. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Agency has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Please note, Ms. Rindlisbacher 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: Emma Rindlisbacher