David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253303)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 25, 2025 SPR25/3303 Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Kalkounis: I have received the petition of David Webb appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 7, 2025, Mr. Webb refiled a previous April 27, 2025 request, seeking “[a]ll police reports from route car 66 Sunday April 27th between 11am and 2pm.” The City responded on November 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3303, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on November 10, 2025. 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. 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

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3303 Page 2 November 25, 2025 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 November 8th and November 10th Responses In its November 8, 2025 response, the City stated, “[a]s you have been told several times in the past ‘route car numbers’ is not a searchable field. Therefore, no records could be located based on the information provided in the request.” In its supplemental response on November 10, 2025, the City stated: The City is unable to fulfill your request as it does not describe records sought with sufficient particularity… The City is not able to locate responsive records as there is no way to search for records by “route cars.”… In accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and the Chawla decision… it is unclear which specific records you seek… Continuing to file the same request for over 6 months, after you have received several responses stating the City is not able to locate records with the information you have provided is frivolous… [W]e welcome a modification or clarification to assist the City in locating responsive records. In a further email to this office and Mr. Webb on November 17, 2025, the City stated, “Mr. Webb claims that he has provided the city with ‘a particular timeframe and particular officers’; this is incorrect. He has not provided an officer name, or location, or incident, and we cannot locate anything based on ‘route car 66.’” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Webb stated, “the city of Worcester … [is] again refusing to provide the requested records based on the search fields available to [the] department, rather than complying with the Massachusetts public records law.” 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 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).

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3303 Page 3 November 25, 2025 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). In its response, the City is seeking clarification regarding the scope of Mr. Webb’s request. Please be advised that it is valid for the custodian of records to 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.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Consequently, Mr. Webb is encouraged to provide the City with the needed clarification regarding the records he seeks. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public records sought). In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii), (b)(ii). In this case, where the City indicates that it “. . . is not able to locate responsive records as there is no way to search for records by ‘route cars’…[,]” I find that Mr. Webb has not provided the City with sufficient particularity required for the City to identify the documents he is seeking. Mr. Webb may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Webb has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb