Simoneau, Esq., Brian v. Medfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260053)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 14, 2026 SPR26/0053 Dylan Haldiman Administrative Sergeant Medfield Police Department 112 North Street Medfield, MA 02052 Dear Sergeant Haldiman: On January 7, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Medfield Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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 Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Attorney Brian Simoneau. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 18, 2025 Attorney Simoneau requested “all incident reports regarding [a named individual].” 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 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 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

Dylan Haldiman SPR26/0053 Page 2 January 14, 2026 (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 Department requests an extension of time, and in in email to this office on January 14, 2026, the Department clarifies that it is requesting an additional 10 business days. In its petition, the Department provides the following information in support of its request: It should be noted that the Department currently has 76 reports, most of which will be heavily red acted or denied. . . . The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. Exemption (A): Exemptions by statute. All reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in c. 209A sec. 1, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, the capacity of the Department to produce the request without the extension, efforts undertaken by the Department in fulfilling the current request and previous requests, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66,

Dylan Haldiman SPR26/0053 Page 3 January 14, 2026 § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 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 Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department states the following: In addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under

Dylan Haldiman SPR26/0053 Page 4 January 14, 2026 Exempt ion (a), the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (A) and (C): Exemption (c): domestic violence reports, social security number(s), medical information, juvenile information, witness information, license number(s), and telephone number(s) - as you are aware, this exemption applies to “personnel and medical files or information; also, any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” . . . Given the nature and magnitude of the request for information, I believe the Medfield Police Department has met the standard for the second prong of the two prong test relevant to the petition to assess fees. In such, the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the Medfield Police Department to comply with the request. The lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record request currently makes $31.59 per hour. We understand the standard rate is $25.00 per hour, however, the Medfield Police Department respectfully requests the Supervisor of Records approval to adjust this rate by petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Please note that the Department submitted its petition on January 7, 2026, more than ten business days after receipt of the request. In light of the fact the Department has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and permission to assess fees in excess of $25.00 per hour cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 10 business days as described above. However, as explained above, where the Department has not submitted a timely petition for fees, I am unable to approve the Department’s request to assess fees for segregation and redaction, or fees in excess of $25.00 per hour. Please note, however, this does not preclude the Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. Please note, Attorney Simoneau 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).

Dylan Haldiman SPR26/0053 Page 5 January 14, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Attorney Brian Simoneau