William Kim v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252966)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/2966 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. It appears the Department assigned the request two separate reference numbers: B002492-090625 and R004638-090625. On September 23, 2025, the Department provided a fee estimate of $945.75 to provide the responsive records. 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. SPR25/2966 Page 2 October 20, 2025 Previous Appeals and Reconsideration This request was the subject of previous appeals and a reconsideration. See SPR25/2677 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (September 19, 2025 and October 8, 2025) and SPR25/2901 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 9, 2025). In my October 8th determination, I declined to reverse my September 19th determination, which found that the request was overbroad and encouraged Mr. Kim and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. In my October 9th determination, I again encouraged the parties to communicate and ordered the Department to revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how it is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The Department responded on October 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Kim petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2966, 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. 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 Department’s October 9th Response In its October 9, 2025 response, the Department stated: Although you identify the records that you are looking for, this description does not meet the statutory standard that records be identified with sufficient particularity. The description you provide is too broad and vague. Administrative personnel would be required to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related to the category of materials requested…

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2966 Page 3 October 20, 2025 If this request is found not invalid under Chawla or Friedman, the Department reserves the right to charge a fee. The Department would need to review and redact information under statutes related to juvenile information, arrests involving minors, Criminal Offender Record Information, or incidents related to sexual assault. The Department would also need to petition the Supervisor for a waiver from the statutory limits on assessing fees… We encourage you to consider narrowing this part of your request. You may wish to modify or clarify your request to provide sufficient particularity, including narrowing the time period or identifying specific incidents to enable the search to be processed. Should you seek specific records I encourage you to visit the City's public records portal. In a further response on October 16, 2025, the Department stated that it stands by its October 9, 2025 response. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Kim stated: I remain prepared to cooperate fully and, if necessary, to narrow or clarify the scope of my request to facilitate production in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law. However, I must also note that the Department’s conduct to date strongly suggests bad faith and deliberate noncompliance…. While I am willing to consider reasonable modifications to the scope of my request, the Department’s attempt to nullify an active Supervisor’s order cannot stand. Even a narrowed scope would be meaningless if agencies are permitted to ignore or retroactively void determinations issued by your office… I have already prepared a narrowed version of the request, which can be submitted immediately upon your direction. In an email on October 16, 2025, Mr. Kim argued that the Department’s responses constitute “defiance of the Supervisor’s order” and amount to a “violation of Massachusetts Public Records Law.” In a subsequent email on October 17, 2025, Mr. Kim stated, “[t]he Department’s statement that it ‘stands by its response’ does not address the Supervisor’s prior determination, and I believe responsive BRIC-related records remain withheld.” Please be advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2966 Page 4 October 20, 2025 expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Based on the Department’s responses and the information provided in the appeal petition, where both parties have indicated a willingness to engage in modifying the scope of the request, this office encourages Mr. Kim and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. 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). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Kim and the Department communicate further as described above, Mr. Kim may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jaehyun Kim