Ryan Duarte v. New Bedford, City of - Clerk's Office (SPR 20253412)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 3, 2025 SPR25/3412 Romina Moniz Central Records Access Officer City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Ms. Moniz: I have received the petition of Ryan Duarte appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 30, 2025, Mr. Duarte sought the following related to “any and all ‘sting operations,’ compliance checks, or enforcement actions conducted by or in coordination with the New Bedford Board of Health within the City during the period of August 2, 2022 through August 2, 2025”: [1] Records identifying each business or establishment where a sting operation, compliance check, or inspection took place within the above timeframe; [2] Copies of all inspection reports, citations, violations, or internal/external communications referencing those operations; [3] Any interdepartmental communications, emails, memos, or notices of violation relating to those operations or issued in connection with these activities; [4] The names of the departments, agencies, or personnel involved in conducting, supervising or overseeing such operations (e.g., Board of Health, New Bedford Police Department, MA Department of Public Health, etc.); and [5] Any video, photographs, footage, or body-worn camera recordings created during or in relation to those operations, if such records exist. The City responded on November 14, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Duarte petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3412, was opened as a result. 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

Romina Muniz SPR25/3412 Page 2 December 3, 2025 Fee Estimates – Municipalities 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. 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 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 two (2) hours of employee time to search for compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record of 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 the 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). The City’s November 14th Fee Estimate In a November 14, 2025 response, the City provided a fee estimate of $12,925.00 and stated the following: Regarding parts one through five of your request, after a preliminary search the City has identified records from 491 compliance checks and 601 inspections potentially responsive to your request, including Point of Sale Toolkit summaries, cease and desist orders, photographs and footage from one body worn camera. The City estimates that it will take roughly 19 hours to finalize its search, compile the requested records, and segregate and redact the records where required by law in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Under exemption (a), a records access officer is unable to disclose records or information that is “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” The City anticipates applying redactions pursuant but not limited to personal Information, including, but not limited to social security and driver’s license numbers pursuant to G.L.c. 93H, § 1 and license plate numbers pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2721. G.L. c. 93H, § 1 bars from disclosure a resident’s first and last name/first initial and last name in combination with one or more of the following: (1) social security numbers, (2) driver’s license or state-issued identification card numbers, or (3) financial

Romina Muniz SPR25/3412 Page 3 December 3, 2025 account/credit/debit numbers. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2721 (Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from state motor vehicle records), the disclosure to the public of personal information about an individual obtained in connection with a motor vehicle record is prohibited. Regarding part two of your request that includes communications, and part three of your request for communications and emails, the City has identified 15,000 emails potentially responsive to the specifications provided in your request. The City estimates that it will take approximately 2 minutes per email to complete its search, compile the records, and segregate and redact the records where required by law in accordance with, but not limited to, the above cited authority. The City provides the following estimate below: (15,000 emails) * (2 minutes per email/search, compile, and where required by law segregate, redact and/or withhold)=30,000 minutes (30,000 minutes) * (1 hour/60 minutes)= 500 hours The above time estimate is based on a precursory search, the scope of your request (which covers a three-year time span of August 2, 2022-August 2, 2025), how the requested records are kept, and the City’s experience fulfilling records requests. As outlined by the Massachusetts Public Records Law, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of personnel time taken to search for, compile, redact, or reproduce the record(s) requested unless said municipality is comprised of 20,000 people or less. The City of New Bedford has a population of more than 20,000 individuals. Therefore, the City is seeking payment for 517 hours [(500 hours+ 19 hours=519 hours) – (2 hours at no charge)]. The lowest paid employee capable of performing the necessary work to respond to your request has an hourly rate that exceeds $25.00 per hour. Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, the maximum hourly rate that can be charged for a fee estimate is $25.00 per hour. Therefore, the City is seeking payment of (517 hours) * ($25.00/hour) = $12, 925.00. … Lastly, beyond any statutorily required redactions, redactions may be required pursuant to G.L.c. 4, § 7(26)(f), to preserve witness and complainant anonymity, and G.L.c. 4, § 7(26)(c), to remove personal information belonging to specifically named individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The employee time required to apply redactions or withholdings pursuant to exemptions (f) and (c) are not included in the above quoted good-faith fee estimate.

Romina Muniz SPR25/3412 Page 4 December 3, 2025 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Duarte argues the following: [1] The City’s fee estimate is excessive, unreasonable, and inconsistent with 950 CMR 32.07[;] [2] The City improperly included redaction time in the estimate[;] The City stated it anticipated redactions under multiple exemptions, but also stated those redactions were not included in the estimate. Given the scale of the estimate, this assertion appears contradictory and unsupported. [3] The City failed to provide a sufficiently “specific, itemized good-faith estimate”[;] The response does not identify: [a] the number of staff assigned[;] [b] the systems being searched[;] [c] how emails were counted[;] [d] why 2 minutes per email is required, or[;] [e] why technological search tools cannot reduce the time. [4] The scope can be reasonably fulfilled by exporting datasets instead of reviewing each email manually… Reasonableness of the fee estimate Although the City indicates in its fee estimate that it would take 519 hours to produce the responsive records, it is unclear why the City requires this much time. Based on the City’s fee estimate it appears that the City is assessing a fee for search time for Items 1 through 5 and an additional fee specifically for Items 2 and 3. The City must clarify why it is assessing two different search times for Items 2 and 3. Additionally, the City must clarify why it requires 19 additional hours to finalize its search for the responsive records. Further, it is unclear why the City requires two (2) minutes per email to “search/compile and where required by law segregate, redact and/or withhold.” Accordingly, the City must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in the search for the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). In the City’s response, it appears it is assessing a fee for redactions under G.L. c. 93H, § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2721 as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. However, the City also stated, “redactions may be required pursuant to G.L.c. 4, § 7(26)(f), to preserve witness and complainant anonymity, and G.L.c. 4, § 7(26)(c), to remove personal information belonging to specifically named individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Based on the forgoing, it is not clear if the City intends to assess a fee for segregation or reaction under other exemptions to the Public Records Law. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may not be assessed for time spent

Romina Muniz SPR25/3412 Page 5 December 3, 2025 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). Consequently, the City must also clarify whether its fee estimate includes time for segregation or redaction not required by law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $12,925.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Duarte and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Duarte may wish to narrow his request. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Duarte with a response to the request, 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. Mr. Duarte may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ryan Duarte