Jeff Goldstein v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20253784)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 31, 2025 SPR25/3784 Meredith Stivers, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Stivers: On December 23, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Somerville (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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, I understand that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Jeff Goldstein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 2, 2025, Jeff Goldstein requested “all public records related to communications, emails, drafts, meetings, lobbying interactions, and external correspondence between Somerville City Council members and any outside organizations (including DSA, CAIR, BDS, or foreign advocacy groups) regarding the recent boycott resolution against Israel.” Following correspondence with the City, Jeff Goldstein provided the City with narrowed search parameters on December 6, 2025. Petitions 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: (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 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

Meredith Stivers, Esq. SPR25/3784 Page 2 December 31, 2025 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the City requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The City received multiple requests with nearly identical wording that appear to have been organized or facilitated by a single person or organization…. It will be extremely time-consuming to locate the requested records. An IT search must be conducted involving use of search terms and combination of keywords that are reasonably likely to lead to responsive records. The results of a preliminary search have been voluminous, with tens of thousands of emails identified. Therefore, the City seeks permission to produce documents in more than 25 business days. Currently, the City estimates that it will take 44.4 hours to redact and segregate the email records requested…. This petition meets the statutory standards stated in G.L.c.66, §10(d)(iv) to be used by the Supervisor in ruling upon petitions such as this, given the volume of material that has been requested, the need for careful review before release of the records, and the potential for the contents of these records to require withholding or redaction to prevent unlawful disclosure under the public records law. In a subsequent email to this office and Jeff Goldstein on December 29, 2025, the City clarified that it “. . . request[s] the maximum allowable time extension of 30 days from the grant of the extension by the Supervisor.” I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, in conjunction with the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension and the efforts undertaken by the City in fulfilling the current requests, the City has established good

Meredith Stivers, Esq. SPR25/3784 Page 3 December 31, 2025 cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees The City submitted its petition on December 22, 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 cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. However, as noted above, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records cannot be granted. Please note, however, this does not preclude the City from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. This office encourages the parties to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the City must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Jeff Goldstein 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Goldstein