Joel Lewin v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20253070)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 3, 2025 SPR25/3070 William H. Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: I have received the petition of Joel Lewin, Esq., of Hinckley Allen, appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 30, 2025, Attorney Lewin requested the following records: [1] All documents and correspondence (as defined above) between Global Partners and MassDOT (each as defined above) during the Relevant Time Period, whether or not relating to or otherwise in connection with the RFP and/or the Procurement, including without limitation, all documents and correspondence involving the following [identified] individuals. In furtherance of and as part of this request, I request an opportunity to obtain and/or directly examine the phones, phone records, computers, tablets (whether business or personal) of all MassDOT individuals that communicated with Global Partners during the Relevant Time Period, including without limitation, the following specific documents and correspondence: all phone call records, call logs, voicemail messages, text messages, instant messages, messages transmitted through any computer or telephone application or program, emails, video conference logs, calendar entries, invites, reminders, and the like reflecting any correspondence between Global Partners and MassDOT during the Relevant Time Period. [2] All documents and correspondence between MassDOT and any journalists, reporters, online news publications, or member of the news media regarding the RFP, the Procurement [identified individuals]. [3] Copies of all documents and correspondence concerning each and every 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

Williams H. Doyle, Esq. SPR25/3070 Page 2 November 3, 2025 instance of Global Partners visiting the MassDOT offices for the purpose of meeting with MassDOT. This request includes, but is not limited to, visitor logs, security sign-in materials, badge swipe data, security camera footage, meeting notes, calendar invitations, or any other documents reflecting the date and content of any meetings between MassDOT and Global Partners, as well as the identity of any participants in such meetings. [4] All documents and correspondence concerning any complaint or criticism of Global Partners’ performance under the current lease and concessions agreement pursuant to which Global Partners is managing, directly or indirectly, service plazas along the Massachusetts Turnpike. [5] All documents and correspondence concerning any assessment of Global Partners’ performance under, or compliance with, the current lease and concessions agreement, or any predecessor amendments, revisions, or agreements, pursuant to which Global Partners has managed, directly or indirectly, service plazas along the Massachusetts Turnpike, at any time of such management. [6] All documents and correspondence concerning or comprising any communication between Global Partners or any Global Partners representative, including but not limited to [identified individuals], Brustlin, Inc. (VHB), O’Neill and Associates, or any other entity working for or with Global Partners in connection with the RFP and/or the Procurement, and MassDOT, any MassDOT employee, or any MassDOT advisor or representative, including [identified individuals]. MassDOT provided responses to Attorney Lewin on October 1, 2025 and October 2, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Attorney Lewin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3070, 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

Williams H. Doyle, Esq. SPR25/3070 Page 3 November 3, 2025 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. Current Appeal In his appeal, Attorney Lewin states, “MassDOT’s Records Access Officer acknowledged receipt of the Public Records Request by email dated October 1, 2025, a copy of which is attached at Tab 2. By email dated October 2, 2025, MassDOT assigned Reference No. P002197-100225 to the Public Records Request. A copy of MassDOT’s October 2, 2025 email is attached at Tab 3. I have not received any further communications from MassDOT’s Records Access Officer in connection with the Public Records Request. More than ten (10) business days have elapsed since submission of the Public Records Request without a substantive response by MassDOT.” MassDOT’s October 1st and October 2nd Responses In its October 1, 2025 response, MassDOT stated, “[w]e are in receipt of your request and it has been entered into our system for processing; you should be receiving an email by tomorrow confirming this along with a Reference Number.” In its October 2, 2025 response, MassDOT advised, “[y]our public records request (see below) has been automatically entered, and assigned our Reference Number P002197-100225 for tracking purposes. Please note that your request is deemed received on the first business day after it has been entered in accordance with the Massachusetts Public Records Law; this is an automated response and does not mean it has been viewed by our department if received outside of non-business hours.” Timeliness in Providing Records 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).

Williams H. Doyle, Esq. SPR25/3070 Page 4 November 3, 2025 Where Attorney Lewin’s request was originally submitted on September 30, 2025, and MassDOT has not provided the responsive records, I find that MassDOT has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, MassDOT must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, MassDOT must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, MassDOT is ordered to provide Attorney Lewin with a response, 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. Attorney Lewin may appeal the substantive nature of MassDOT’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joel Lewin Esq.