Claire Ogden v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253670)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 19, 2025 SPR25/3670 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge Office of the City Solicitor 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: On December 12, 2025, this office received your petitions on behalf of the City of Fall Cambridge (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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 City furnished a copy of the petitions to the requestor, Claire Ogden. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 26, 2025, Ms. Ogden requested: [1] [C]ity employees’ usage logs of generative AI software (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, etc.) [2] [A]ny invoices or receipts associated with those [identified] purchases[;] It is my understanding that on December 10, 2025 and December 11, 2025, the City sought clarification from Ms. Ogden regarding the scope of her request, but the City did not receive further correspondence regarding these inquiries. 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: 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

Seah Levy SPR25/3670 Page 2 December 19, 2025 (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 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) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the City requests an extension of 40 business days and argues the following in support of its request: The request sent by the Requester is extremely broad in nature. It asks for all logs, of all City employees, using any type of Generative AI. No time frame was provided. The City must therefore assume that it must provide all logs that exist, for all employees, former and present, that have made use of any Generative AI. Microsoft CoPilot is currently available to City Hall employees. Google Gemini is currently available to Cambridge Public School Department employees. The City anticipates having to ask the Information Technology Departments for both City Hall, and the School Department, to spend significant time locating and exporting all logs available. Additionally, the City has concerns about the information that may be contained in these logs. Attached please find a cost letter attached which contains a list of statutory exemptions which may be required to produce these logs. The Cambridge Public School Department has taken a sample log of a single account and found that it currently contains 1,631 pages. The CPSD IT staff will further be required to remove code from this document to translate it to a format more readable by humans.

Seah Levy SPR25/3670 Page 3 December 19, 2025 A single person working full-time on the review portion of this request would require six weeks to complete the request and would not be available for their other duties during this time period. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records and the capacity of the City to produce the request without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Seah Levy SPR25/3670 Page 4 December 19, 2025 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the City requests permission to charge fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records at rates of $64.00, $50.13, and $47.45 per hour. The City submitted its petition on December 12, 2025, more than ten business days after receipt of the request. In light of the fact that the City has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records or a waiver of statutory limits cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(d). Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and

Seah Levy SPR25/3670 Page 5 December 19, 2025 scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production Id. at 2. This office encourages Ms. Ogden and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Ogden may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. However, as described above, in light of the fact that the City has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records or a waiver of statutory limits cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Please be advised, however, this determination does not preclude the City from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law at a rate of $25.00 per hour. Please note, Ms. Ogden 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, §§ 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Claire Ogden