Erika Marques v. Westminster, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253346)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 18, 2025 SPR25/3346 Stephanie Welch Executive Assistant to the Police Chief Westminster Police Department 7 South Street Westminster, MA 01473 Dear Ms. Welch: On November 12, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Westminster Police Department (Department) seeking permission to waive statutory limits to fees and to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Erika Marques, of the Haddad Law Firm. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 11, 2025, Ms. Marques requested, “police accident reports from 11.2.25 to 11.9.25[.]” Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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

Stephanie Welch SPR25/3346 Page 2 November 18, 2025 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records at a rate of $32.64 per hour. Commercial Purpose In its November 12th petition, the Department argues that the request is made for a commercial purpose, and provides the following information in support of its argument: This marks the third petition submitted to the Supervisor of Public Records regarding the assessment of fees to Haddad Law Firm. Previous petitions— SPR25/2850 and SPR25/2776 were granted, authorizing the charging of fees for time spent responding to their requests.

Stephanie Welch SPR25/3346 Page 3 November 18, 2025 As determined in all prior petitions submitted by our department to the SPR, the records requested by Haddad Law Firm are being sought for a commercial purpose. In accordance with these prior determinations, we respectfully request approval to once again assess a fee of $32.64 per hour for the time required to search, retrieve, and prepare responsive records. In an email to the requestor and this Office on November 18, 2025, the Department provided the following additional information: Importantly, Haddad Law Firm has previously acknowledged that its public records requests are being made for a commercial purpose. This is consistent with the findings in all prior petitions our department has submitted to the SPR concerning this requester. The pattern of requests demonstrates that the firm is routinely seeking accident reports for use in commercial activities rather than for civic, journalistic, or academic purposes. Further supporting this conclusion, the Haddad Law Firm’s own website (thehaddadfirm.com) shows that the firm’s business model centers on personal injury litigation, specifically including motor vehicle accidents. Their publicly advertised practice areas emphasize securing financial compensation for clients involved in car and truck crashes, and the site promotes free consultations and contingency-fee representation—clear indicators of commercial client solicitation. The firm’s webpages highlight past results, describe how they pursue claims following vehicle accidents, and encourage individuals involved in crashes to contact the firm for legal representation. This directly demonstrates that accident reports are being sought to identify potential clients and support ongoing commercial legal activities. As noted in a prior petition, the May 6 request submitted by Haddad Law Firm was sent—using identical language—to more than 80 police departments across the Commonwealth. This demonstrates a coordinated, statewide effort to gather large quantities of accident data. When viewed alongside the firm’s stated commercial purpose and its marketing practices, these mass-distributed requests further indicate a systematic attempt to acquire records for legal client solicitation. Additionally, on May 7, 2025, the law firm explicitly confirmed via email that its request was being made for commercial purposes. This admission, combined with the repetitive, widespread, and coordinated nature of the requests, supports our position that the requester is utilizing the public records process to advance a private business enterprise. While M.G.L. c. 66, §10 mandates public access to records, subsection §10A(d)(iv) provides custodians with the ability to seek relief when requests are

Stephanie Welch SPR25/3346 Page 4 November 18, 2025 made for a commercial purpose or impose an unreasonable burden. Given the volume and frequency of Haddad Law Firm’s requests—and their limited relevance to public oversight—we believe this matter satisfies the statutory criteria for fee authorization. Processing these large-scale, repetitive requests places a substantial administrative strain on our department, particularly when they appear to form part of a coordinated commercial solicitation effort. The term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, it is my understanding that Ms. Marques’ request meets the statutory definition of “commercial purpose” within the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix); see also SPR20/2599 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2021). Authority of the Supervisor In its petition, the Department also requests that “this petition be granted as a blanket authorization permitting our office to charge Haddad Law Firm for all future public records requests submitted by them, consistent with the previously approved rate.” The Department is advised that in petitioning to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits for records requests not yet received, the Department seeks relief outside the scope of statutory authority given to the Supervisor under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii), (iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4) Conclusion Based on the Department’s petition and my finding that the request was made for a commercial purpose, I approve the Department’s fee petition. Accordingly, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction limited to $32.64 per hour. Please note, Ms. Marques has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10A(c).

Stephanie Welch SPR25/3346 Page 5 November 18, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Erika Marques