Edwin C. Cadorette v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253793)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 7, 2026 SPR25/3793 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Edwin C. Cadorette, Esq., of Davagian Grillo & Semple LLP, appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 3, 2025, Scott K. Semple, Esq., also of Davagian Grillo & Semple, requested, “[a]ny and all written or electronic communications made or received by any staff member, employee, or agent of the Mayor’s Office of Housing on which [an identified individual] is a sender, recipient, or copied party to the communication for the period of January 1, 2024 through the present.” The City responded on October 20, 2025, and assigned the request reference number R005299-100325. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney Cadorette petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3793, was opened as a result. 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 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

Grace Jung SPR25/3793 Page 2 January 7, 2026 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 appeal, Attorney Cadarotte stated, “[t]his charge is totally unreasonable and unjustified. First, for the reasons outlined above, there is no need to redact the records where the City of Boston has no ‘attorney-client’ relationship” with [an identified individual].” The City’s October 20th Response In its October 20, 2025 response, the City provided a fee estimate in the amount of $1,578.75. In support of the fee estimate, the City stated, “[t]he City has conducted a search of its electronic databases to identify potentially responsive records. This search yielded 3,909 records.” The City further stated, “[t]he City estimates that staff can compile, redact, and segregate approximately one record per minute. At this rate, based on the number of potentially responsive records noted above, the City expects it will take 65.15 hours to compile, redact, and segregate these records. A records custodian must assess the lowest hourly rate of a person capable of performing the task when it issues a fee estimate. 950 CMR 32.07(2)(i). The lowest hourly rate for a person capable of reviewing the records responsive to your request is approximately $25 per hour. At a rate of $25 per hour, accounting for the first two hours without charge, the corresponding cost of fulfilling your request would be $1,578.75.” In further support, the City asserted, “[i]t is apparent from an initial review that these records contain material that the law requires be redacted or segregated. See G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). For example, these records contain: Privileged attorney-client communications. Records responsive to your request include communications between City attorneys and their clients, as well as communications among City employees about advice provided by their attorneys. This material is protected by the attorney-client privileged and must be segregated and redacted before records could be released.” The City also advised, “[t]he City would be happy to work with you to narrow your request. This could reduce the number of responsive documents and the corresponding fee. Please let me know if you would like to discuss how your request could be narrowed.” Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the City’s response, the City has sufficiently explained the amount of time it requires to search for and compile the responsive records and appears to be charging a fee based on one minute to compile, segregate and redact each email under the attorney-client privilege. Further, the City has confirmed that an hourly rate of $25.00 is equal to or less than the hourly

Grace Jung SPR25/3793 Page 3 January 7, 2026 rate of the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks. Consequently, I find that the City has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount of time to produce the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). In light of the City’s response, I encourage Attorney Cadorette and the City to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Attorney Cadorette may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable time periods or factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 or municipality to produce 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 will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Cadorette is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Edwin C. Cadorette, Esq.