Kenzie Cuttler v. Medford, City of (SPR 20252959)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/2959 Kevin P. Foley City Solicitor City of Medford 85 George P. Hassett Dr. Medford, MA 02155 Dear Mr. Foley: I have received the petition of Kenzie Cuttler appealing the response of the City of Medford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 29, 2025, Ms. Cuttler requested “copies of all permits, special exemptions, and permissions granted to National Grid or RJ Devereaux Corp., in connection with the Proactive Main Replacement Program, which began on Friday, August 29, 2025.” Specifically, Ms. Cuttler requested: [1] Documents [2] Approvals [3] Authorizations [4] Construction Permits [5] Environmental Exemptions, and [6] Related Correspondence. The City responded on September 2, 2025 and September 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Cuttler petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2959, 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). 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

Kevin P. Foley SPR25/2959 Page 2 October 20, 2025 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. Att’y 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. 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 2nd and September 17th Responses In its September 2, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]his confirms receipt of your Public Records Request, which has been forwarded to the [Departments of Engineering and Public Works] for further action.” Subsequently on September 17, 2025, the City stated that “[w]e have requested the records sought from our Engineering and Public Works departments. As I indicated on the phone with you, in accordance with G. L. c. 66, s. 10(b)(vi) [the City] expects to produce the requested records within 25 business days of the request or by October 7, 2025.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Cuttler states, “I waited the requested extended time period until October 7th of 2025. In this period I received no further contact after this email.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the 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 an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and 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 Ms. Cuttler’s request was originally submitted on August 29, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the

Kevin P. Foley SPR25/2959 Page 3 October 20, 2025 request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested 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 Ms. Cuttler with a response to her 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. Ms. Cuttler 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: Kenzie Cuttler