Anna Bruno v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20252861)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 6, 2025 SPR25/2861 William J. Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: On September 29, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Department) requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Attorney Anna Bruno, of Lawson & Weitzen. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In three (3) public records requests on September 15, 2025, Attorney Bruno requested 17 categories of documents and communications regarding autonomous vehicles created between April 1, 2023 to the present. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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 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

William J. Doyle, Esq. SPR25/2861 Page 2 October 6, 2025 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. Current Petition In its petition, the Department seeks permission to “charge the requester for time spent segregating and redacting records that are responsive to the request.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In support of its request, the Department provides the following information: [T]he request consists of 17 categories of requests related to autonomous vehicles in Massachusetts, many of which seek records from April 1, 2023 to the present. [D]ue to the substance of the request, we believe responsive records may require redaction of records for the following reasons:  relating to policy positions being developed by an agency pursuant to Section 7(26)(d);  involving proposals and vids under Section 7(26)(n)  containing certain attorney/client communications.

William J. Doyle, Esq. SPR25/2861 Page 3 October 6, 2025 [R]edaction under Exemption (d) is intended to avoid the premature release of materials that could taint an ongoing deliberative process. [R]edaction under Exemption (n) pertains to records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which is likely to jeopardize cyber security. [L]astly, redaction is allowed for certain communications that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, which applies under the Public Records Law. See Suffolk Construction Co. v. Division of Capital Asset Management, 449 Mass. 444, 450, n.9 (2007). Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Department 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 Accordingly, I find the Department 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 Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Department is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Department must provide a response to Attorney Bruno within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Attorney Bruno 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: Anna Bruno, Esq. Stephen W. Shorey, Esq.