James Lawrence v. Lowell, City of - Law Department (SPR 20253488)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 10, 2025 SPR25/3488 Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. First Assistant City Solicitor City of Lowell 375 Merrimack Street, 3rd Floor Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Attorney Beaulieu: I have received the petition of James Lawrence appealing the response of the City of Lowell (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. Lawrence requested the following records: [1] ... copies of records related to LPS/City handling of retirement refund corrections for [an identified individual] during Jan 1, 2022 – Nov 6, 2025 (focus Sept 8 – Nov 5, 2025). Please search the [identified] custodians and any official accounts corresponding with Equitable ... Please include: emails (with attachments/headers), letters, directives, spreadsheets/calculations, check logs and images (issue/void/reissue/receipt), chain-of-custody, mailroom logs, Teams/Slack chats, texts on government devices, voicemails/logs, calendars, and policies/SOPs. Key terms: “403(b)[,]” “457(b)[,]” “workers’ compensation[,]” “earned income[,]” “ineligible contributions[,]” “refund directive[,]” “letter of instruction[,]” “1/1/22–9/29/25[,]” “$2,400[,]” “$1,675[,]” “City Hall has it[,]” “auditing should have,” “don’t circle back,” “check history,” “reissue,” “void,”... The City responded on November 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Lawrence petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3488, 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 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

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR25/3488 Page 2 December 10, 2025 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. 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 24th Response In its response, the City states, “[o]n November 6, 2025, you sent the City an email requesting a litigation hold on documents related to your retirement refund. The City believes, in good faith, that the documents you requested relate directly to the litigation hold you referenced in your correspondence. As such, this public records request is an attempt to circumvent the discovery process. The discovery process and the Public Records Law are two distinct and independent avenues for gaining access to records. The proper avenue for this request is through discovery.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Lawrence asserts, “[m]y request targets routine administrative records: ledgers, internal adjustment forms, check logs, and ordinary emails reflecting decisions about processing my retirement refund and 403(b) transactions. To the extent there are specific communications with counsel that the City believes are attorney–client privileged or work product, those can be handled via redaction or targeted withholding with an explanation. The City has made no such tailored effort. It has simply refused to process the request at all.” Possession, Custody, or Control Upon review of Mr. Lawrence’s appeal and the City’s response, the City is advised that 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). Based on the City’ response, it remains unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Mr. Lawrence’s request. If the City does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR25/3488 Page 3 December 10, 2025 agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). I encourage Mr. Lawrence and the City to communicate further in order to facilitate producing responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Lawrence 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. Lawrence may appeal the substantive nature of the City’ response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Lawrence