Ryan Duarte v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20253643)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3643 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street, Room 203 New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: 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 November 18, 2025, Mr. Duarte requested: …records for the incident at the New Bedford Board of Health on November 17, 2025, involving three NBPD officers responding to a call for a so-called “disturbance”: [1] All Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage recorded by each of the three responding officers, including full unedited video and audio from the moment they were dispatched until the end of their interaction with me. [2] Their complete written police reports, including any supplemental reports, internal notes, or narrative entries. [3] All sworn statements or testimony (if any) by the responding officers relating to this incident. [4] CAD logs, dispatch logs, and recorded 911/department line calls showing:  Who placed the call requesting police[;]  The exact complaint stated[;]  All dispatch notes[.] The City responded on December 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Duarte petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3643, 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3643 Page 2 December 23, 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. The City’s December 4th Response On December 4, 2025, the City stated, “[t]he City will be providing you with a response within 25 business days from receipt of your request. The City requires additional time due to staffing shortages and the volume of records requests.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Duarte contends: The City did not provide a response within the required 10 business days, and on December 4, 2025—16 days after receipt—they sent a letter stating only that they required “additional time due to staffing shortages” and would respond within 25 business days. This is not a valid legal basis for delay, nor does it comply with M.G.L. c. 66, §10 or 950 CMR 32.04. The City failed to:  Provide a timely response under the 10-day requirement;  Identify which records were being searched;  Provide a reasonable explanation for the delay;  Provide a specific estimated date of production;  Provide any portion of the records;

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3643 Page 3 December 23, 2025  Provide a good-faith fee estimate, if applicable. Where the City indicated in its December 4th response that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, I find that the basis of Mr. Duarte’s appeal is unclear. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may 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). Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A(a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66 § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Duarte in the appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once Mr. Duarte receives the response, or if the City fails to provide a response within the statutory timeframe, he may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ryan Duarte