Nicholas Laudani v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253361)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 1, 2025 SPR25/3361 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Nicholas Laudani appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 6, 2025, Mr. Laudani requested: Pursuant to G.L. c. 66, §10, please produce the following records concerning [an identified individual’s] Open Meeting Law complaint received on or about September 8, 2025 and the HPACDC’s review/response: [1] Distribution to Members: All emails, transmittals, or messages from the Chair, staff, or City counsel to HPACDC commissioners that attach or forward [an identified individual’s] OML complaint (including attachments). Please include complete email headers and timestamps and the attached files in native format (.eml/.msg + PDFs). [2] Meeting to Review Complaint (14 business days): [a] Agendas, calendar invites (.ics), and staff notes for any meetings where HPACDC reviewed the complaint; [b] Minutes reflecting the body’s discussion and any vote to approve a response; [c] Any open-session motion and roll-call to enter executive session for this topic (if applicable), with times in/out. [3] Response and Transmittals: The final response sent to [an identified individual] and/or the AGO, and any transmittal emails forwarding that response. [4] Search Description: Identify custodians searched (e.g., Chair, commissioners, administrator, counsel) and the search terms/date range used (suggested date 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

Grace Jung SPR25/3361 Page 2 December 1, 2025 range: Aug 28, 2025 – Oct 15, 2025). The City provided responses on October 6, 2025 and October 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Laudani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3361, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response to Mr. Laudani and this office on November 14, 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. Att’y 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 City’s Responses In its October 6, 2025 response, the City confirmed receipt of Mr. Laudani’s request for public records. In its October 21, 2025 response, the City states the following: The records responsive to the second half of this request have been released to the Public Records Center. … The first part of your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. … Here, you seek “All emails, transmittals, or messages from the Chair, staff, or City counsel to HPACDC commissioners” related to an OML complaint. In order to conduct a reasonable search, email addresses of recipients, the OML complaint, and its search terms must be provided. Since this information is not provided, a

Grace Jung SPR25/3361 Page 3 December 1, 2025 government employee has no way of reasonably identifying the records you seek without conducting an unreasonable amount of research. As such, your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as there is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. Finally, if the City was able to determine the records requested with reasonable particularity, it is likely based on your current request that it would be necessary to charge a fee estimate given the large volume of potential records. Any and all documents and/or information that is requested may involve a significant volume of records, including records containing information that must be redacted before the records can be released. We encourage you to submit a new request with a more specific description or a narrower scope. In the meantime, this request will be closed. On October 21, 2025, Mr. Laudani provided the City with a modified request. The City provided a supplemental response on November 14, 2025, stating, “[t]his request (R005319- 100625) was closed on October 21, 2025. The city provided partial records however, we were unable to conduct a reasonable search for the remaining portions of the request.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition on November 14, 2025, Mr. Laudani contends, “the City issued its first written response closing the request as ‘overly broad,’ while referencing (without producing to me) a ‘second half’ of records posted to the portal…. I submitted a narrowed, header-only request…. As of today, Nov 13, 2025, I have not received any written response or production addressing that narrowed scope.” Additional Records Based on the City’s response, and in conjunction with the information provided in Mr. Laudani’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Mr. Laudani’s October 21st modified request and additional records responsive to the “second half” of Mr. Laudani’s request. 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). 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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Laudani with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations

Grace Jung SPR25/3361 Page 4 December 1, 2025 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. Mr. Laudani may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Laudani