Nicholas Gregoretti v. Chelsea, City of (SPR 20252891)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 14, 2025 SPR25/2891 Jessica C. Morales Records Access Officer City of Chelsea 500 Broadway Street Chelsea, MA 02150 Dear Ms. Morales: I have received the petition of Nicholas Gregoretti appealing the response of the City of Chelsea (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 2, 2025, Mr. Gregoretti sought the following: [C]opies of any and all records, including but not limited to emails, text messages, instant messages, direct messages, and other written communications . . . for the period of January 1, 2024 through date of fulfillment, that: [1] Relate to the Zoning Amendment Case #ZA-24-04 or the Special Permit Case #2025-07 for 100 Justin Drive; and/or[;] [2] Reference or involve Boston Provisions LLC, Wulf’s Fish, Savenor’s Butcher, od Sea2050; and/or[;] [3] Concern or reference the All-America City Awards or the All-Chelsea Awards Gala, including but not limited to sponsorships, contributions, or participation by Boston Provisions LLC or its affiliates. This request should include communications by and between: [1] The City Manager[;] [2] The City Solicitor[;] [3] The Director of Planning & Development[;] [4] Members of the Chelsea City Council (including [an identified individual])[;] [5] Members of the Planning Board (including [an identified individual])[;] [6] Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals[;] [7] Staff of the above offices or boards, when acting in their official capacity 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

Jessica C. Morales SPR25/2891 Page 2 October 14, 2025 In particular, this request expressly includes any and all communications between [an identified] Councilor and [an identified] Planning Board Vice Chair relating to Case #ZA-24-04 (the zoning amendment), Case #2025-07 (the special permit), Boston Provisions LLC, Wulf’s Fish, Savenor’s Butcher, Sea2050, the All- America City Awards trip, or the All-Chelsea Awards Gala. Please include communications both internal and external. The City responded on September 9, 2025 and September 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Gregoretti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2891, 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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 9th and September 18th Responses In its September 9, 2025 response, the City stated, “[w]e have received your Public Records request for Chelsea. This record is in process of being assigned to the appropriate department. The department reviewer will review the request and create a[n] effort estimate to create the response…Once you approve the amount and send the payment, we will start working on your request…” In its September 18, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he initial Google Email/Drive extract produced over 10000 emails. IT exported all mailboxes related to the request to our eDiscovery appliance so we can add more specific filters. The export finished yesterday. Today IT has applied specific filters based on the request and it produced 1900 emails related to this specific public record request. This is an extremely large request and has already taken more than 2 hours to search for the information requested. We now have to filter through 1900 emails

Jessica C. Morales SPR25/2891 Page 3 October 14, 2025 which will take more than 2 hours. There will be a fee for this request. A cost estimate will be provided to you by Monday…” Current Appeal In his October 2, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Gregoretti stated, “[i]t has now been 30 days since the original request was submitted. The City has not provided the requested records in full, despite acknowledging that there are 1,900+ responsive emails…It has now been two weeks since I last heard from the City…No production timeline has been provided for the emails or for the other categories of records requested.” Timeframe for Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that . . . for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Gregoretti submitted his request on September 6, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the review and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Gregoretti 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. Gregoretti may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Jessica C. Morales SPR25/2891 Page 4 October 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Gregoretti