Emma Rindlisbacher v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (SPR 20253721)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3721 Stephanie Zierten, Esq. General Counsel Massachusetts Development Finance Agency 99 High Street Boston MA 02110 Dear Attorney Zierten: On December 17, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (Agency), seeking 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 Agency furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Emma Rindlisbacher. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 8, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher sought a renewal of an earlier September 16th public records request. On September 16, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested the following records from the period “between [J]an 1, 2022 and the date the search is conducted[:]” [A]ll text messages between [two identified individuals]. . . . Please take an expansive view of the definition of text messages and include both text messages through cell phone telecom as well as text messages through messaging apps (whatsapp, signal, etc). Prior Petition and Appeal Ms. Rindlisbacher’s September 16th request was the subject of a prior appeal and time petition. See SPR25/2856 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 3, 2025); and SPR25/3185 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 13, 2025). In my October 3rd determination, I found that the Agency had established good cause for a time extension of twenty (20) business days. In my November 13th determination, I learned that the Agency had provided a response dated November 3, 2025. 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

Stephanie Zierten, Esq. SPR25/3721 Page 2 December 23, 2025 Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not 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. 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 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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.

Stephanie Zierten, Esq. SPR25/3721 Page 3 December 23, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Agency requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (n). In support of its petition, the Agency provides the following information: We anticipate the potentially responsive records will contain home addresses, personal email addresses or phone numbers. 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 also anticipate that MassDevelopment will need to redact any financial account numbers and other information to protect against cybersecurity risks and financial fraud pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c) and (n). Financial account information is additionally redacted from the responsive records pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93H, which requires agencies to safeguard personal information including financial account numbers provided in combination with a resident’s name. In light of the Agency’s petition, I find the Agency 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 Agency may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Agency has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without segregation or redaction. Ms. Rindlisbacher may appeal the Agency’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Rindlisbacher 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).

Stephanie Zierten, Esq. SPR25/3721 Page 4 December 23, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher Sean Calnan, Esq.