Brandon M. Hayes v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253636)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 22, 2025 SPR25/3636 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 Brandon Hayes 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 September 10, 2025, Mr. Hayes requested the following: I’m submitting a second public records request, which is focused exclusively on City of Boston communications and documentation relating to two legal matters in which I am a named party: State Docket No. 2501CV001715EF Federal Docket No. 1:25-cv-12208-WGY Second Request Scope: Please produce all emails, forwards, internal messages, attachments, documents, or meeting records sent, received, or held by any Boston agency or official from May 15, 2025 to present that: Include either docket number above; Mention me by name . . . or email . . . ; Discuss any filings, hearings, testimony, exhibits, or correspondence related to either case; Were sent to or from any of the following offices or officials: City Clerk or Clerk Magistrate’s Office (BMC Central) Boston Law Department Mayor’s Office Any city department with involvement in legal, procedural, or administrative processing of my filings[;] Any interaction with state or federal offices regarding either case[.] The City responded on September 24, 2025, and assigned reference number R004748- 091025 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Hayes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3636, 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

Grace Jung SPR25/3636 Page 2 December 22, 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. 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. Fee Estimates - Municipalities 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 be 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 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or 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 a 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 September 24th Response In its September 24, 2025 response, the City provides a total fee estimate of $1,003.75. and states the following:

Grace Jung SPR25/3636 Page 3 December 22, 2025 The City has conducted a search of its electronic databases to identify potentially responsive records. This search yielded 2,529 records. . . . For your request, the City must review all of the records before they can be released. First, the City must compile the responsive records by reviewing all records to determine which are responsive to your request and which are not. Second, the City must redact and segregate the records to ensure material protected by law is not released. In this request, the records contain communications between a City of Boston attorney and employee or a City of Boston employee conveying a City attorney’s legal opinion. Such records qualify as privileged attorney-client communications and therefore, must be segregated and redacted for confidential information before they can be released. The City estimates that staff can compile, redact, and segregate approximately one record per minute. At this rate, based on the number of potentially responsive records noted above, the City expects it will take 42.15 hours to compile, redact, and segregate these records. A records custodian must assess the lowest hourly rate of a person capable of performing the task when it issues a fee estimate. 950 CMR 332.07(2)(i). The lowest hourly rate for a person capable of reviewing the records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Hayes contends that “under 950 CMR 32.06–32.08, this is a constructive denial and—given the timing relative to my filings in SJ-2025-0468, 1:25-cv-12208, and 1:25-cv-12881—a retaliatory obstruction of public record access.” Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Boston Municipal Court. See Eastern Bank vs. Hayes Haus Husbandry LLC, et al., Boston Municipal Court Docket No. 2501CV001715EF (Dec. 12, 2025). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the City’s fee estimate. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Grace Jung SPR25/3636 Page 4 December 22, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Hayes