DeMarco, Celeste v. Wellesley, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260020)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2026 SPR26/0020 K.C. Kato Town Clerk Town of Wellesley 525 Washington Street Wellesley, MA 02482 Dear Ms. Kato: I have received the petition of Celeste DeMarco appealing the response of the Town of Wellesley (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 11, 2025, Ms. DeMarco requested the following: 1. All emails and attachments referenced or responded to by [an identified individual] in the message reproduced below. Please include all emails to which he was replying on February 27–28, 2017, as well as any internal or external correspondence relating to that discussion. Names of minors or other exempt information may be redacted as permitted by law. 2. Any and all documents, memorialized communications, reports, or records supporting [an identified individual’s] statement that he “fully support[s] their action to de-escalate the recent situation.” This includes, but is not limited to, incident reports, officer statements, internal emails, memoranda, notes, or any other materials that formed the basis for [an identified individual’s] suggestion that the police were de-escalating a situation. On December 11, Ms. DeMarco further clarified her request as follows: With respect to this request do not produce police reports that we already have in our possession (such as what was attached to the criminal complaint). I am specifically looking for documents that support the need for police to allegedly “de-escalate” the situation at the Kids Time basketball game on the weekend of February 25 or 26th, 2017. 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

K.C. Kato SPR26/0020 Page 2 January 16, 2026 We are looking for documentation to support [an identified individual’s] claim that the police were there to de-escalate a situation. … The Town responded on December 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. DeMarco petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0020, was opened as a result. On January 6, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided a further response. 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, § 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. The Town’s December 27th Response On December 27, 2025, the Town asserted: For the reasons discussed below, your request fails to reasonably describe the records sought. Accordingly, the WPS is not obligated to respond. In Friedman v. Division of Admin. Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024), the Massachusetts Appeals Court examined the statutory obligation for requestors to reasonably describe the records sought…. Your request does not meet the obligation to “reasonably describe” the records sought as required under the law, to warrant a response from WPS. Your request seeks “documents that support the need for police to allegedly ‘de-escalate’ the situation at the Kids Time basketball game on the weekend of February 25 or 26th, 2017.” Your request, as it stands, places the burden on WPS employees to subjectively determine whether something would “support” the police’s decision to respond to the scene in February 2017. This does not enable Town employees

K.C. Kato SPR26/0020 Page 3 January 16, 2026 who are familiar with the subject area of your request to promptly identify what records you are seeking. Accordingly, your request falls outside the scope of the Public Records Law and does not warrant a response. Should you submit a request that meets the obligations of the law, the Town of Wellesley will provide a response. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DeMarco contends, “[i]f you do not produce all responsive documents concerning the incident to which [an identified individual] refers, specifically those he cites in support of WPD’s purported efforts to ‘de-escalate,’ consider this email formal notice of appeal of your response.” On January 6, 2026, in a supplemental response to Ms. DeMarco’s appeal, the Town explained: … It is unclear whether this email constitutes a new request for all communications “relating to the incident referenced by [an identified individual] in his email” or challenges the sufficiency of the Town’s response. If it was intended as a new request, the appeal is untimely, as the Town should have 10 business days to respond. Ultimately, even if this is to be treated as a new request, for the reasons outlined in the Town’s December 27 email (9:54 am), the new request lacks the specificity needed to constitute a request under the law. The phrase “[a]ll records relating to the incident” does not provide the Town with the required detail to enable a staff member to identify and locate the records sought promptly. Instead, the staff member will be tasked with making substantive decisions about whether something is “related” to an incident. … On January 13, 2026, Ms. DeMarco further clarified her appeal, stating, “I am appealing on the grounds that the Town’s response does not comply with the Massachusetts Public Records Law or its implementing regulations. … Here, the Town: [d]eclined to respond to my initial offer to clarify; [i]ssued a ‘no documents’ response based on alleged ambiguity; [f]ailed to engage after I again offered to clarify, narrow, or discuss the scope of the request; and failed to explain with reasonable specificity how any search conducted.” In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be

K.C. Kato SPR26/0020 Page 4 January 16, 2026 inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). The Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consequently, this office encourages Ms. DeMarco and the Town to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Ms. DeMarco may wish to clarify her request. The Town 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).

K.C. Kato SPR26/0020 Page 5 January 16, 2026 Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. DeMarco and the Town communicate further as described above, Ms. DeMarco may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Celeste DeMarco