Shonda Green v. Department of Telecommunications and Cable (SPR 20253507)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 4, 2025 SPR25/3507 Sarah K. Monahan, Esq. General Counsel Department of Telecommunications and Cable One Federal Street, Suite 0740 Boston, MA 02110-2012 Dear Attorney Monahan: On November 26, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Telecommunications and Cable (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission 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, Shonda Green. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 14, 2025, Ms. Green requested “email communications sent or received between January 2, 2025 and November 10, 2025 involving [an identified individual] and each of the following [five identified] individuals[.]” Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the 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

Sarah K. Monahan, Esq. SPR25/3507 Page 2 December 4, 2025 municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Department requests an additional twenty business days and provides the following in support of its request: As detailed in the attached letter, which is incorporated by reference into this fee petition, DTC conducted a search and identified approximately 4,801 potentially responsive records to this request. These potentially responsive documents may contain privileged materials and materials exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law and other statutes, including without limitation, G.L. c. 4, §§ 7(26)(a), (c), and (d), attorney client privilege, and other applicable exemptions. The nature of this search and review of a significant number of potentially responsive records means that DTC requires additional time to gather, segregate, and prepare the records for production. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Department is granted an extension of 20 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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

Sarah K. Monahan, Esq. SPR25/3507 Page 3 December 4, 2025 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency 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; 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 – Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (d) and provides the following in support if its request: Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, commonly referred to as the “privacy exemption,” allows an agency to withhold personnel and medical files or information, as well as “any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion

Sarah K. Monahan, Esq. SPR25/3507 Page 4 December 4, 2025 of personal privacy.” G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). We anticipate the potentially responsive records may contain home addresses, personal email addresses, or phone numbers, particularly in consumer complaint records. We also anticipate there could be information unrelated to the request within the responsive records that constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as details of personnel records, medical appointments, family relationships, etc. We additionally anticipate the potentially responsive records may contain documentation and materials that are subject to active and ongoing deliberate process review as part of open dockets currently pending before the Department, for example drafts of final Department orders and hearing officer rulings. Such records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Deliberate Process Exemption of the Public Records Law. G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). The Deliberative Process Exemption is intended to avoid release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if prematurely disclosed. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). This office encourages Ms. Green and the Department to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Ms. Green 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, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shonda Green