Ryan Duarte v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20253776)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2026 SPR25/3776 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 26, 2025, Mr. Duarte requested the following: . . . The official narrative and supplemental reports [concerning an identified August 25, 2015 incident] list the following sworn [New Bedford Police Department] officers as involved: . . . [1] [An identified] Officer . . . - primary narrative author[;] [2] [An identified] Officer . . . - stop, detention, suspect designation[;] [3] [An identified] Officer . . . - Use of Force Report[;] [4] [An identified] Officer . . . - vehicle search / observations[;] [5] [An identified] Officer . . . - vehicle observations[;] [6] [An identified] Lt. . . . (referenced in related filings)[;] [7] [An identified] Officer . . . (involved in related dispatch and Fl reports)[;] [8] Any officer listed in CAD logs, PT-1 transport logs, or supplemental reports for [an identified incident number][.] . . . For each of the above officers, I request certified copies (or electronic copies) of the following: [1] Surety Bond / Official Documentation [a] Any surety bond, fidelity bond, blanket bond, liability bond, or insurance instrument required as a condition of holding office or employment; [b] The issuing carrier/company, bond number, amount, coverage 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. SPR25/3776 Page 2 January 8, 2026 summary, and effective dates; [c] Proof of filing of the bond with the City Clerk per M.G.L. c. 41[;] [2] Sworn Oath of Office [a] The officer’s signed and executed oath of office pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41, §18 and any related filing or certification documents; [b] Date sworn, administering official, and copy of the recorded oath; [c] Name/title of the administering authority[;] [d] Filing certification (City Clerk or NBPD)[;] [3] Filing Certifications [a] The record custodian confirming where the oath and bond are legally filed and maintained[;] [b] Any change of status, suspensions, or lapse periods . . .[;] [4] Disciplinary Records / Internal Affairs Files . . . [a] All sustained, unsustained, pending, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded disciplinary complaints[;] [b] All citizen complaints, internal complaints, and administrative investigations[;] [c] Any disciplinary actions, reprimands, suspensions, counseling memos, or findings[;] [d] Any Professional Standards Division investigative reports[;] [e] Any Brady/Giglio disclosures or credibility-related findings[;] This request includes, but is not limited to, files maintained under: Internal Affairs/ Professional Standards[,] Early Warning Systems[,] Supervisor Reviews[,] Complaint Registers[,] Disciplinary Notifications to POST Commission (M.G.L. c. 6E)[,] [and] Any documents submitted to or received from the Massachusetts POST Commission regarding these officers[;] [5] Training & Certification. . . [a] POST certification status[;] [b] Use-of-force training records[;] [c] Any decertifications, suspensions, or pending matters . . .[.] The City responded on December 22, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Objecting to the fees, Mr. Duarte petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3776, 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 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, §

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3776 Page 3 January 8, 2026 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 (two) 2 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). Current Appeal In his December 23, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Duarte contends that the City’s fee estimate “assesses excessive fees . . . and fails to justify the reasonableness of the time claimed[.]” He also states, “the City’s fee calculation improperly includes anticipated redactions that are speculative” and further notes that “the . . . records concern police authority, training, discipline, and accountability . . . supporting a reduction or waiver of fees.”

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3776 Page 4 January 8, 2026 Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k)(emphasis added). The City’s December 22nd Fee Estimate In its December 22, 2025 response, the City advised that it “does not have any documents responsive” to Items 1, 3, and 4(e) of the request, and provided a link to “the POST Commission’s website” while noting that Mr. Duarte may use the link to access records responsive to Items 4, 5(a), and 5(c) of his request. The City also provided a fee estimate of $437.50 to produce records responsive to Mr. Duarte’s request. In doing so, the City explained that it would require a total of 17.5 hours of work and that it would charge a rate of $25 per hour, which is less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the required tasks. The City additionally provided the following in support of its fee estimate: [2] Sworn Oath of Office. The Department estimate [sic] it will take 30 minutes per officer to locate the personnel file, find the oath, copy or scan the document, return the document to the file and return the file to the location where it is stored. Please note, some officers are no longer with the Department, and their personnel files are contained in boxes in a storage area. Total amount of time to search and compile the requested records is 3.5 hours [210 minutes (30 minutes x 7 officers)]. . . . [4] Disciplinary Records/Internal Affairs. Before providing you with the records for each officer listed in your request, the City is required to segregate and redact the record in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). . . . The City anticipates segregating and redacting the following information from the record pursuant to the following statutes—

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3776 Page 5 January 8, 2026 [a] Registry of Motor Vehicle Information (such as license plate numbers and registration information) pursuant to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721. [b] Personal Information (such as a resident’s first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with a driver’s license number or state issued identification card number) pursuant to G.L. c. 93H, § 1. [c] Medical conditions and/or treatment of a specifically named individual pursuant to HIPAA, 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a)(1). The City anticipates that it will take approximately ten hours (600 minutes) to fulfill your request. This time estimate includes search, compile, segregation and redaction time (in accordance with the above cited authority) and is based on how the requested records are kept, the City’s experience fulfilling similar records requests, and a precursory review of the potentially responsive records. . . . [5] Training & Certification. . . . The Department estimates it will take four hours (240 minutes) to locate the Use of Force trainings and suspension information, copy or scan the document, return the document to the file and return the file to the location where it is stored. As outlined by the Massachusetts Public Records Law, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of personnel time taken to search for, compile, redact, or reproduce the record(s) requested unless said municipality is comprised of 20,000 people or less. In compiling this estimate the City has already spent 2 hours of time at no charge. The City . . . has a population of more than 20,000 individuals. Therefore, the City is seeking payment for 17.5 hours [(1050 minutes / 60 minutes)]. . . . Therefore, the City is seeking payment of (17.5 hours) * ($25.00/hour) = $437.50. Although the City has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing the requested records for production requires 17.5 hours, it is unclear how the City requires this many hours to produce the records. Specifically, it is not clear from the City’s estimate how much time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. The City must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in producing these records. Accordingly, the City must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Additionally, please be advised that the City cannot charge a requestor for the time it takes to search for responsive records based on the organization and management of its records. Public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a); see G. L. c. 66, § l2; see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979).

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3776 Page 6 January 8, 2026 Further, where the City states that “[i]n compiling [its] estimate the City has already spent 2 hours of time at no charge[,]” it is unclear if the 17.5 hours of work specified in its fee estimate includes the first free 2 hours to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce records. Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first (two) 2 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)(emphasis added). The City is reminded that “the first free 2 hours” of employee time under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii) does not include time spent compiling or preparing a fee estimate in response to a request for records, but for the tasks noted above. The City must clarify this matter. For the reasons discussed above, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed in its December 22nd estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). With regard to Mr. Duarte’s objections regarding the City’s claims of exemptions to segregate and redact the records, please be advised that where the City has yet to produce the records, I find these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once records are provided, Mr. Duarte may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). I encourage the parties to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Duarte may wish to narrow his 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 municipality 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, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Duarte with a response to his 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ryan Duarte Lisa A. Presby