Rachal, Doreen v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260292)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 12, 2026 SPR26/0292 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Attorney Doreen M. Rachal, of Sidley Austin LLP, appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). In three (3) separate requests on October 2, 2025, Sadie Colon, also of Sidley Austin LLP, requested “[d]ocuments relating to misconduct investigations, allegations, disciplinary charges, and other documents concerning three former Boston Police Officers . . . relating to the same client [identified individual],” encompassing approximately 28 parts and subparts. I understand the Department has assigned reference numbers B002775-100225, B002776-100225, and B002777-100225 to these requests. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the City. See SPR25/3024 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 22, 2025 and November 20, 2025). In my November 20th determination, I declined to reverse the October 22nd determination where I found that the Department had established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Additionally, given the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the requested records, I was unable to grant permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour. I noted, however, that the November 20th determination did not preclude the Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. The Department included initial fee estimates with its petition and request for reconsideration on October 15 and October 31, 2025. Subsequently, the Department provided a revised fee estimate on December 1, 2025 and January 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses and objecting to the fees, Attorney Rachal 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0292 Page 2 February 12, 2026 petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0292, 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. 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. 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0292 Page 3 February 12, 2026 The Department’s Revised December 1st and January 9th Fee Estimate In its December 1, 2025 revised fee estimate, the Department gives a total fee estimate of $2,368.33. In a further response on January 9, 2026, the Department provides the following information in support of the fees: The Department did not receive permission from the Supervisor to charge in excess of $25.00. However, in order to respond to this request, the Department will need to review the homicide file to compile responsive records and to segregate or redact information under Exemption (a). The initial fee estimate provided by the Department was $3,278.83 which included charging over $25.00 for a portion of the records. The fee estimate was not solely for segregation and redactions under Exemption (c) and Exemption (f). The petition to the Supervisor was for permission to redact under these exemptions. The Department does not need to seek permission to segregate and redact under Exemption (a). In its petition to the Supervisor and in its response to you, the Department indicates that any redactions under Exemption (c) and Exemption (f) would be in addition to statutory exemptions. The fee was for permission to charge for these redactions in addition to Exemption (a). However, in order to determine if there are any exemptions under Exemption (a), the Department needs to review all of the responsive records. Because the Department needs to review all of the requested records to segregate or redact any record or portion of a record that is prohibited from disclosure by statute, the Department believes that the fee estimate of $2,368.33 is reasonable. The Department is required to remove information under G. L. c.41, §97D which provides that “all reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, 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.” See M.G.L. c. 41, § 97D. This statute protects Department records relating to sexual assault and domestic violence in their entirety. As such, any and all reports of sexual assault and domestic violence are not deemed public and are protected by the Department in a manner that assures their confidentiality, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 41, §97D. The statute expressly states that such records are not public. The Department does not have discretion to release these records and is prohibited from doing so pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department is prohibited from releasing Criminal Offender Record Information (“CORI”). The Department is prohibited from disclosing CORI records under the Public Records Law because of G.L. c. 6, §172 and such a request is not a public record under G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). The Department must

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0292 Page 4 February 12, 2026 also review the records for attorney-client privileged communications. Suffolk Const. Co., Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset Management, 449 Mass. 444 (2007). Attorney-client privileged communications are not public records and shall be withheld entirely. The Department believes that its fee of $2,368.33 is reasonable and is made in good faith. If you’re willing to narrow down your request, the Department will consider lowering the fee estimate or waiving the fee estimate. The Department is also willing to assist you in narrowing your request. In its previous October 15 and October 31, 2025 responses, the Department provided the following information concerning the amounts of time involved in reviewing the records: The Department has located internal affairs files and anti-corruption files responsive to these requests. The Department has located 32 cases for John A. Martel for a total of 1,600 pages; 9 cases for Sgt. Det. Thomas John O’Leary totaling approximately 630 pages; and 20 cases for Willie Grant totaling over 1,000 pages. The Department has located anti-corruption files concerning Willie Grant totaling 774 pages. These records total 4,004 pages. . . . The Department estimates that it can redact and segregate these records at a rate of one page per minute, totaling 66.73 hours. . . . Reviewing the [homicide] file will take Department staff 30 hours. 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;

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0292 Page 5 February 12, 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. This office encourages Attorney Rachal and the Department to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Attorney Rachal may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the Department to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The Department must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Attorney Rachal and the Department communicate further as described above, Attorney Rachal may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Doreen M. Rachal, Esq.