Lipchitz, Esq., Joseph v. Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (SPR 20260066)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR26/0066 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 3, 2025, Attorney Lipchitz requested the following: 1. All documents relating to any potential or actual contract with the Broad Institute, or cancellations of events or refunds or requested refunds related to the Broad Institute. 2. All documents, communications (including emails and text messages), and records concerning the Broad Institute, including but not limited to communications to or from [a named individual] concerning any contracts, deposits, agreements, or payments to the Broad Institute. 3. All documents, communications (including emails and text messages), and records concerning the return of any deposits or other funds to the Broad Institute by MCCA, including but not limited to communications, checks, and accounting records. 4. All documents, communications (including emails and text messages), and records concerning any attempt by MCCA to retain [a named individual] or the Castle Group, including but limited to any draft request for proposals, submissions, and communications. 5. All documents, communications (including emails and text messages), and records concerning [a named individual], including but limited to any request for proposals, submissions, agreements and communications. 6. All documents concerning or relating to any communications (including 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 SPR26/0066 Page 2 January 15, 2026 emails and text messages) between anyone at the MCCA and [a named individual] or [another named individual] relating to any decisions, policies, or operations of the MCCA or [a named individual]. 7. All documents, communications (including emails and text messages), and records concerning [a named individual]’s access to or monitoring of the email and computer files of [another named individual], including but not limited to all emails of [a named individual] forwarded by [another named individual]. 8. All documents concerning or relating to MCCA’s: (1) email privacy or security policies; (2) employment handbooks; (3) procurement policies; (4) anti-discrimination policies; and (5) document preservation policies. 9. All documents concerning or relating to any communications (including emails and text messages) between anyone at the MCCA and [a named individual]. 10. All documents concerning or relating to any communications between anyone at the MCCA and [a list of named individuals] relating to allegations of discrimination, violations of procurement policies, or misconduct at the MCCA. 11. All documents concerning or relating to any communications between anyone at the MCCA and [a list of named individuals] relating to [a named individual]. 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)(ii); 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 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.

Kevin P. Scanlon SPR26/0066 Page 3 January 15, 2026 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. To the best of our knowledge, the records will likely contain policy developmental information, 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 and exempt from disclosure under M.G.L., c., 4, sections 7(26) (c),(d), and (f). Additionally, the Authority may identify other applicable exemptions as we continue to review the documents. The request for records will likely contain material that will require segregation and/or redaction under Exemption (d) to the Public Records Law, which protects “intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency.” Given the magnitude of two (2) public records requests, the nature of the requests, the request will likely capture a significant amount of records concerning on-going non-public policy development within the Authority. This information does not constitute factual studies or reports but is rather recommendations on legal and policy matters found within the ongoing deliberative process within the Authority. The broad request will also likely contain investigatory information that will require segr[eg]ation and/or redaction under Exemption (f) to the Public Records

Kevin P. Scanlon SPR26/0066 Page 4 January 15, 2026 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 segregated and/or redacted prior to release. Lastly, 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 and/or segregation 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 segregating and/or redacting information under these applicable exemptions. 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.