Weessam Dennaoui v. Department of Public Health (SPR 20253050)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 3, 2025 SPR25/3050 Helen Rush-Lloyd Records Access Officer Department of Public Health 250 Washington Street Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Rush-Lloyd: I have received the petition of Weessam Dennaoui appealing the response of the Department of Public Health (Department/DPH) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 15, 2025, Mr. Dennaoui requested the following “... all emails sent to or received from the following Mass.gov accounts during the specified date ranges. Include full email content and any attachments.” [1] ... @mass.gov [a] April 3, 2024 through April 5, 2024 [b] April 10, 2024 through April 12, 2024 [c] April 24, 2024 through April 26, 2024 [d] May 7, 2024 through May 10, 2024 [e] May 13, 2024 through May 15, 2024 [2] ...@mass.gov [a] April 24, 2024 through April 26, 2024 [b] May 1, 2024 through May 3, 2024 [c] April 30, 2025 through May 2, 2025 [3] ...@mass.gov [a] January 22, 2025 through January 24, 2025 [b] January 27, 2025 through January 30, 2025 On September 15, 2025, Mr. Dennaoui modified his request and stated, “I am willing to combine all listed email addresses into a single, continuous time range. Please note, however, that this will result in responsive records spanning several months or up to a year, as some records sought date from May 2024 while others are from May 2025. I will exclude … 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

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR25/3050 Page 2 November 3, 2025 @mass.gov from this request and will submit a separate request for that account once the current request is fulfilled.” Mr. Dennaoui further modified his request on September 15, 2025 and stated, “I can break the request into smaller, contiguous windows and submit them one at a time. This would divide the current request into four parts:” Request A: April 3–15, 2024 [two identified individuals] @mass.gov Request B: April 24–May 15, 2024 (same two accounts) Request C: April 30–May 2, 2025 ([an identified individual] @mass.gov only) Request D: January 22–30, 2025 ([an identified individual] @mass.gov) If this works well for you, Request A would replace the current request. Once A is completed, I will then submit B, followed by C, and so forth. The Department responded on September 15, 2025 and September 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Dennaoui petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3050, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department sent a further response on October 23, 2025, stating, “[o]n September 24, 2025, DPH sent you a letter regarding the charges per hour and on September 25, 2025, we sent you a fee estimate of $3210.62 to cover the costs of producing records responsive to the public records request. You also received instructions on how to submit payment and notice that the public records request would be closed if payment was not received within 20 business days from the date of the letter. DPH has not received payment as described above. Accordingly, DPH now considers your request closed. You are welcome to resubmit your request at any time.” Fee Estimate - Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 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.

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR25/3050 Page 3 November 3, 2025 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In his September 13, 2025 appeal, Mr. Dennaoui states “[t]his appeal specifically challenges the fee estimate contained within DPH’s correspondence.” The Department’s September 15th and September 24th responses In its September 15, 2025 response, the Department indicated the following: [w]e are reaching out to narrow the scope of this request as it [is] overly broad as written. As we have stated before, IT can only run an email search over a specific date range. By that I mean there can only be one date range for all the email address. They cannot search several date ranges of several email addresses within one request. Also as there are so many date ranges for these various email addresses, this request will be likely be large enough to require a cost estimate. We would like to narrow the scope to one smaller date range of these email addresses. Additionally, although you specified no key words, key words do help to narrow the scope to a reasonable degree if there are certain types of emails or email content that you are looking for. Could you please revise your request and narrow the scope accordingly? You can always make an additional requests for other date ranges after this one has been fulfilled. A year’s worth of emails is going to be a highly extensive request that would result in many thousands of email that would require a very large cost estimate. We are asking for you to narrow the scope to a date range of a few days or weeks for these email addresses and then you can make future requests after this one has been fulfilled. In a further response on September 15, 2025, the Department stated, “[w]e will consider Part A the request for this one currently.” Although on September 18, 2025, the Department requested further modification, Mr. Dennaoui refused to modify any further. In its September 24, 2025 response, the Department provided a good faith estimate of $3,210.62. In support, the Department stated, [w]e have downloaded the emails and attachments and have identified 1,703 documents which total 5,297 pages. The Department estimates 132.42 hours of personnel time will be required to segregate, redact and assemble the records for

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR25/3050 Page 4 November 3, 2025 disclosure. The number of hours has been calculated by estimating an average segregation and redaction rate of 40 documents per hour (5,297 records ÷ 40 documents reviewed per hour = 132.42 hours). The 132.42 hours will be attributed to segregating and redacting records as required by law. At a rate of $25 per hour, the total estimated fee for DPH to respond to your request is $3,210.62 (132.42 hours – 4 complimentary hours) x $25). The Department may charge an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid DPH employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record(s) requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25.00 per hour. G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). The Department may only charge an hourly rate to segregate or redact records if 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). Presently, the Department does not have an employee with such necessary skill who is paid less than $25.00 per hour. Consistent with the Public Records Law, the first four (4) hours of personnel work are free of charge; thereafter an hourly rate of $25.00 will be charged. G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 CMR 32.07(2)(l). Based on the Department’s response, although the Department has indicated that redactions are required by law, I find the Department must provide the applicable statutes and/or advise if the redactions are pursuant to attorney-client privilege. As such, 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). Further, it is noted that 128.42 x $25 totals $3,210.50, not $3,210.62. The Department must clarify. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $3,210.50, is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). I encourage Mr. Dennaoui and the Department to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Dennaoui may wish to narrow his request or include additional factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The Department must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Dennaoui with a response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR25/3050 Page 5 November 3, 2025 preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Dennaoui may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Weessam Dennaoui