Annemarie Grant v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253849)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 13, 2026 SPR25/3849 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Annemarie Grant appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to two (2) requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 19, 2025, in two separate requests, Ms. Grant sought, “all BPD reports…when Boston Police went to or were called from Brigham and Women’s hospital, along with all incident reports from 45 Francis Street and 75 Francis Street,” for the date ranges of January 1, 2017 to July 1, 2017 and January 1, 2019 to September 1, 2019, respectively. The Department responded on December 19, December 22, and December 23, 2025, assigning reference numbers B003660-121925 and B003659-121925 to the requests and providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Grant petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3849, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on December 31, 2025, the Department provided an additional response. 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 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 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3849 Page 2 January 13, 2026 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). The Department’s Responses In its December 19, 2025 response, the Department acknowledged receipt of Ms. Grant’s requests. In its December 22, 2025 response, the Department provided a total fee estimate of $86.66 to provide the responsive records. In support of the fee estimate, the Department stated as follows: A search has been conducted for responsive records from the information requested. There are approximately 328 pages found to be responsive. The Department estimates that segregation and redaction will take one minute per page totaling 328 minutes or 5.466 hours. The first two hours are free of charge leaving 3.466 hours remaining. Despite our trained professionals making far more than $25/hour, the Department will agree to an hourly rate of $25/hour. This would result in a total of $86.66. In two replies to the Department on December 22, 2025, Ms. Grant, stated: [1] I am not looking for this to be combined with any other requests. This should not take more then 2 hours. [I]f it’s more then 2 hours then 1/1/2017-6/1/2017. [2] This is a separate request with separate dates. I did not ask for them to be combined and do not want them combined. This should not take more then 2 hours. [I]f it’s more then 2 hours then provide 1/1/2019-7/1/2019. In its December 23, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[w]e are allowed to combine requests. The Supervisor of Records has stated that a requester cannot make multiple request in order to evade a fee.” In a December 24, 2025 reply to the Department, Ms. Grant stated, “I will just stick to 2019, so for 2019 – would like the whole of 2019, from 1/1/19-12/31/2019, if this is more then two hours move it back to 1/1/2019 to 9/1/2019 – incident reports when Boston Police went to or were called from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, including but not limited to 45 Francis Street and 75 Francis Street. You can now move ahead with the request and just tell me what date it’s stopped at, when the person working on it reaches the 2 hours.”

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3849 Page 3 January 13, 2026 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Grant stated, “[o]n or about December 19, 2025, I submitted two distinct public records requests, each assigned a separate tracking number by the Department…. Despite their distinct timeframes and independent submission, the Boston Police Department combined both requests into a single response and single fee estimate, aggregating page counts, redaction time, and fees…” Ms. Grant is reminded that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. Consequently, I find that in light of the similarity of the subject matter of the two requests submitted by Ms. Grant on December 19, 2025, the requests may be combined for purposes of providing this fee estimate. Accordingly, I find this aspect of Ms. Grant’s appeal resolved. Subsequently, on December 31, 2025, the Department provided an additional response, stating, “[t]he fee estimate provided by the Department is reasonable because the Department needs to review, segregate, and redact the records for any information that is subject to disclosure pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law…. The Department is required to remove information under G. L. c. 41, §97D…. The Department is prohibited from releasing Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). The Department is prohibited from disclosing CORI records under the Public Records Law because of G. L. c. 6, §172 and such a request is not a public record under G. L. c. 4, §7(26)(a)…” Reasonableness of the fee estimate Where the Department has explained that it will charge for segregation and redaction of the records, and has explained the amount of time required to segregate and redact records, and confirmed that the lowest paid individual with the necessary skill is paid no more than $25 per hour, I find the Department has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount of time to segregate or redact the records responsive to this request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). This office encourages Ms. Grant and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Grant may wish to narrow her request. The Department 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 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, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Grant is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3849 Page 4 January 13, 2026 jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Annemarie Grant