Milos Lorde v. Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (SPR 20253588)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 18, 2025 SPR25/3588 Luke Ferreira, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Executive Office of Technology Services and Security One Ashburton Place, Room 804 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Ferreira: I have received the petition of Milos Lorde appealing the response of the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (Office/EOTSS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 11, 2025, Mr. Lorde requested “all records from the period of October 15, 2017 through November 15, 2017, sent between [a specified individual] and [another specified individual].” On September 22, 2025, Mr. Lorde narrowed the scope of his request to remove: [1] [C]alendar items such as invitations, cancellations, etc[;] [2] ITS63 or “staff aug” related emails[;] [3] [C]opies of Published Organizational Charts or conversations about org chart updates[;] [4] [R]ecords where Richard is requesting or receiving approval for PTO, vacation time, sick time, or other time off in his schedule[;] [5] [P]lease deduplicate[.] The Office responded on September 12, 2025, September 22, 2025, October 7, 2025, October 20, 2025, November 4, 2025, November 7, 2025, November 13, 2025, November 17, 2025, November 20, 2025, November 21, 2025, November 24, 2025, and November 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s responses, Mr. Lorde petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3588, 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 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

Luke Ferreira, Esq. SPR25/3588 Page 2 December 18, 2025 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. 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 Office’s Responses On September 12, 2025, the Office acknowledged receipt of the records. On September 22, 2025, the Office asked Mr. Lorde to narrow the scope of the search. On October 7, 2025, October 20, 2025, November 4, 2025, November 7, 2025, November 13, 2025, and November 17, 2025, the Office informed Mr. Lorde they were working on his request. On November 18, 2025, the Office produced records from October 27, 2017, to November 3, 2017, and stated: Please review these messages and let me know if you find whatever communications you are expecting to find. If you do find those messages, we will conduct the same redaction process on the remaining ~170 records. If you do not find the emails you are expecting to find, please let me know as soon as possible, so that I can troubleshoot the search process for this follow-up request. Later on November 18, 2025, the Office stated: Attached please find a partial data set of 119 email communications in response to your September 2025 public records request. As per an email I sent you earlier today, this data set is incomplete, containing only records from the period October 27, 2017, through November 3, 2017. Please contact me once you have reviewed this partial data set, or if you have any trouble accessing this link. On November 20, 2025, the Office produce the above records in Mr. Lorde’s preferred format.

Luke Ferreira, Esq. SPR25/3588 Page 3 December 18, 2025 On November 21, 2025, the Office once again asked Mr. Lorde: Please look through the records when you have a chance and let me know if you see the expected emails. If those records are present, we will begin processing the remaining ~170 items along with all attachments from the data set[.] On November 24, 2025, the Office stated: Can you confirm the following statement: You have no knowledge of any email communications between these two people … during the period October 25 - November 3, 2017, other than the ones I sent to you last week? We can start reviewing the remaining ~170 items this week, but I would prefer not to start that work if there is reason to think that our search process was less than comprehensive. On November 26, 2025, the Office asked Mr. Lorde to: …confirm the following statement: You have no knowledge of any email communications between these two people … during the period October 25 - November 3, 2017, other than the ones I sent to you last week? We can start reviewing the remaining ~170 items this week, but I would prefer not to start that work if there is reason to think that our search process was less than comprehensive. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Lorde states: I made a PRR request on September 11, 2025 and after refining my request and patiently waiting almost 3 months, EOTSS has only recently (11/20) made a partial production. The most recent correspondence from [the Office], below, required me to confirm to him my personal knowledge of potential records… Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall:

Luke Ferreira, Esq. SPR25/3588 Page 4 December 18, 2025 identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Lorde submitted his request on September 11, 2025, and the Office has provided only partial responsive records and has not cited an exemption for withholding the outstanding records, I find the Office has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the Office must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the review and provide the remaining responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Office must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. This office encourages Mr. Lorde and the Office to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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 to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Lorde 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. Lorde may further appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Milos Lorde