William Kim v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252901)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 9, 2025 SPR25/2901 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Jaehyun Kim appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 6, 2025, Mr. Kim requested the following “records created, received, or maintained by BPD or BRIC” from January 1, 2021 to the present: [1] All documents, reports, notes, memoranda, or electronic records (including emails, texts, or internal messaging) referencing or containing my name… or any of my personal identifiers. [2] All BRIC intelligence bulletins, investigative reports, or memoranda referencing me, including the activity number P250193895. [3] All communications between BRIC/BPD and external agencies (including DHS, ICE, FBI, or other state/federal law enforcement) referencing or concerning me. [4] Any records of surveillance, monitoring, investigatory logs, or case files that reference me. [5] All drafts, revisions, and deleted versions of the above categories, to the extent they are preserved. The Department responded on September 23, 2025, assigning the request reference number R004638-090625 and providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Kim petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2901, was opened as a result. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2901 Page 2 October 9, 2025 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). The Department’s September 23rd Response In its September 23, 2025 response, the Department assessed a fee of $945.75 to provide the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the Department stated: The Department conducted an email search which resulted in 2,390 pages. The Department needs to review these records and make additional redactions other than those allowed by statute. The Department needs to review these reports and redact personal identifying information related to specific individuals in order to protect an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Department would need to redact witness names, dates of birth, places of employment, home addresses, phone numbers, and other personal identifying information. While the public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner, the public’s interest in obtaining the names of civilian witnesses and other identifying information does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Under Exemption (f), the Department would need to redact the names of civilian witnesses because disclosure of this information would prejudice future law enforcement efforts; therefore, disclosure of the requested record is not in the public interest. The Department estimates that it would need a minute to review each page which amounts to 39.83 hours to complete the review of the emails, two of which will be waived. After the two hour reduction, 37.83 hours at a rate of $25.00 per hour equals a good faith estimate of $945.75.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2901 Page 3 October 9, 2025 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Kim argued the Department’s response is deficient for the following reasons: [1] Improper narrowing of scope. [2] Failure to disclose existence of records. [3] Exemptions cannot justify non-search. [4] Disproportionate overreach / no criminal charges. [5] Excessive fees and lack of waiver consideration. Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Department states that it would take 39.83 hours to produce and redact the responsive records, it is unclear why the Department requires this much time. The Department must advise how much time is needed to search and how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. Additionally, if redactions are required, I find the Department must provide information about whether the responsive records contain information that is required by law to be segregated or redacted, as well as the applicable statutes, if any. The Department’s fee estimate also lacks confirmation that the rate of $25 per hour is the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task(s). Accordingly, the Department must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii);

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2901 Page 4 October 9, 2025 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Consequently, the Department’s fee may not include time for segregation or redaction not required by law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $945.75 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Kim and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Kim may wish to narrow his request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Kim 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jaehyun Kim