Morais, Jennifer v. Hudson, Town of (SPR 20260191)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0191 Joan M. Wordell Town Clerk Town of Hudson 78 Main Street Hudson, MA 01749 Dear Ms. Wordell: I have received the petition of Jennifer Morais appealing the response of the Town of Hudson (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 26, 2025, Ms. Morais requested: [1] [C]opies of any public records related to [an identified individual’s] permit application for [an identified street address] (conversion to a child care facility)… [2] Emails, memoranda, notes, or reports that mention “[an identified street address]”, “daycare”, “child care”, or [an identified name] in connection with the application. [3] Communications among the Building Commissioner, Planning Board, Planning Department, Town Manager, Select Board, or other staff/consultants regarding zoning, site plan review, parking, plumbing, fire code, or building code determinations for this project. [4] Any staff checklists, review comments, or draft materials related to my application. Subsequently, on September 29, 2025, Ms. Morais modified her request to include the following records: [A]ll internal communications (including ESI) about this project from January 14, 2025 to present as follows: Custodians (including staff/consultants): [5] [B]uilding Department: [an identified individual], former Building Commissioner [an identified individual], plan reviewers. 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

Joan Wordell SPR26/0191 Page 2 February 3, 2026 [6] Planning: [an identified individual], Planning Board (incl. [an identified individual]), Planning staff/consultants [7] Town Administration: Town Manager [an identified individual], Select Board members (incl. [an identified individual]), Town Counsel/Municipal Counsel [8] Public Safety: Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Inspector, Police Chief [9] Any other employees/consultants who communicated about [an identified street address] Records sought: [a] Emails (inbox/sent/archives), internal memos/notes, meeting notes, drafts (with non-exempt portions released)[;] [b] Text/iMessage and app messages (e.g., WhatsApp/Signal/Teams/Slack) used for town business, even on personal devices/accounts[;] [c] Calendar entries/invites, attachments (checklists, markups, diagrams), and available metadata (sender, recipients, date/time, subject, file names)[.] Previous Appeals The requested records were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2870 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 10, 2025), SPR25/3246 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 18, 2025), and SPR26/0032 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 20, 2026). In my January 20th determination, I found that the Town confirmed it did not possess additional records responsive to Ms. Morais’ request. Subsequently, Ms. Morais petitioned this office, objecting to the claim of attorney-client privilege contained in the Town’s previous November 20, 2025 response, and this appeal, SPR26/0191, was opened as a result. 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.

Joan Wordell SPR26/0191 Page 3 February 3, 2026 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 November 20th Response On November 20, 2025, the Town provided a privilege log identifying records that were redacted under the attorney-client privilege. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Morais contends: At this time, I do not dispute that [the Town] has provided all records identified as responsive by the Town, nor do I question [its] good-faith efforts in compiling and producing those materials. My remaining concern is limited solely to the adequacy of the information provided in the attorney-client privilege log. Specifically, the descriptions in the log are too general to permit a meaningful assessment of whether the attorney- client privilege has been properly asserted for each withheld or redacted record. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege, the Supervisor of Records “shall not inspect the record but shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In this case, the Town provided a privilege log identifying records that were redacted under the attorney-client privilege, and included the dates, the names of authors and recipients,

Joan Wordell SPR26/0191 Page 4 February 3, 2026 the substance of the records, and the basis on which the privilege is being claimed. However, the Town did not clarify whether the redacted information constitutes communications made during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such, whether the communications were made in confidence, and that the privilege as to the communications has not been waived. Consequently the Town must clarify if the redacted information satisfies the requirements articulated in Suffolk. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Morais with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Morais may further appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jennifer Morais