Lipchitz, Esq., Joseph v. Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (SPR 20260065)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR26/0065 Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. General Counsel Massachusetts Convention Center Authority 415 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210 Dear Attorney Scanlon: On January 7, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (Authority/MCCA) seeking 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 Authority furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Attorney Paul D. Lipchitz. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 5, 2025, Attorney Lipchitz requested the following: 1. All documents, communications (including emails and text messages), and records concerning or relating to or constituting agreements by Signature Boston and/or Boston Convention Marketing Center with the MCCA, or any payments made by or on behalf of the MCCA to either of those entities. 2. All documents referring or relating to or reflecting or constituting disclosures made by [a named individual] to the MCCA Board, or MCAA, regarding her husband’s employment by any entity that does or has done business with the MCAA, including any entity that has or has had an agreement with MCCA. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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 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

Kevin P. Scanlon SPR26/0065 Page 2 January 15, 2026 circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve an agency’s petition to allow the agency 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 agency 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; 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. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. Current Petition In its petition, the Authority states the following in support of its request to assess fees: Our initial review of Atty. Lipchitz’s request indicates a significant number of potentially responsive records. Given the sheer amount of records requested (1.6 million documents), to the best of our knowledge, the records will likely contain investigatory information, attorney-client communications and attorney work product documents. Therefore, the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (“Authority”) must expend time segregating and/or redacting this information that is protected from disclosure under M.G.L., c., 4, sections 7(26) (f). Additionally, we may identify other applicable exemptions as we continue to review the

Kevin P. Scanlon SPR26/0065 Page 3 January 15, 2026 documents. The broad request will likely contain investigatory information that will require redaction under Exemption (f) to the Public Records Law. To the extent the Authority has engaged outside legal counsel to assist with ongoing investigations within the Authority, certain investigatory details may be considered within the responsive records. This information would need to be redacted prior to release. In addition, certain responsive emails will contain material that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, and work product doctrine. These are between the Authority personnel and MCCA attorneys and/or outside legal counsel concerning Authority legal matters. The Authority has not waived the privilege concerning any communications related to this matter. The Authority estimates that it will take approximately 1 minute to perform the necessary redactions on each page of nonexempt responsive records. Based on the above, the Authority should be allowed to charge for this work. Charging a fee in this matter is necessary because Mr. Lipchitz’s request cannot be prudently completed without redacting information under these applicable exemptions. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames 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 inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). 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;

Kevin P. Scanlon SPR26/0065 Page 4 January 15, 2026 (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. Conclusion The Authority submitted its petition on January 7, 2026, more than ten business days after receipt of the request. In light of the fact that the Authority 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). Please be advised, however, this does not preclude the Authority from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. This office encourages the Authority and Attorney Lipchitz to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency 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 agency to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Authority must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul D. Lipchitz, Esq.