Grogan, Andie v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20260340)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2026 SPR26/0340 Cynthia Amara, Esq. Records Access Officer Law Department City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Amara: On February 2, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Somerville (City) 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 City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Andie Grogan. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 20, 2026, the City received Ms. Grogan’s request for public records. Ms. Grogan modified her request on January 22, 2026, seeking: …for the period of August 1, 2025 through the present. … [1] Communications[:] All written, electronic, and digitally stored communications…sent, received, or maintained by: [t]he Mayor’s Office, City Council, the Legal Department, and the Somerville Police Department…[w]here such communications include the following terms: ICE, DHS, CBP, LUCE, Somerville Rapid Response Network, SRRN, immigration enforcement, anti-ICE, community defense, vigil, Burlington, federal agents, [or] neighborhood watch…. [2] Supporting and Associated records[:] Attachments, linked documents, and filed referenced in communications[;] Communication logs, message indices, or retention logs where available[;] [and] Calendars, meeting invites, and scheduling communications relating to all aforementioned items…. … …I am happy to narrow the inquiry down to the named keywords (so, omitting 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0340 Page 2 February 5, 2026 general concepts) and to documents pertaining only to 1. Communication and 2. Supporting and associated records. For the keyword “vigil,” I can narrow that request down to a time period of August 1st, 2025 to September 1, 2025. 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, § 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0340 Page 3 February 5, 2026 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, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under the attorney-client privilege, the City indicates that it will need to redact the responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law, and argues the following in support of its request: The above search has returned approximately 29,211 email results. This petition meets the statutory standards stated in G.L. c. 66, [§] 10(d)(iv) to be used by the Supervisor in ruling upon petitions such as this, given the volume of material that has been requested, the need for careful review before release of the records, and the potential for the contents of these records to require withholding or redaction to prevent unlawful disclosure under the public records law. The results of such searches are often voluminous, with a large number of unresponsive emails present. Further, the request is seeking communications to and from the Somerville Legal Department which will likely return attorney-client privileged documents and therefore require even more careful review. The City will need to review all records and may need to redact or withhold for reasons including, but not limited to, the following: 1) Attorney-client correspondence, 2) Inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda and letters regarding policy positions; and 3) Personal cell phone numbers or personal email addresses. Due to the extensive nature of this request, the estimated number of email results, and the estimated time necessary to undertake this endeavor, the requested fee is necessary because this request cannot be “prudently completed without the [review and redaction].” G.L. c. 66, [§] 10(d)(iv). Further, the fee is not intended to “limit, deter or prevent access” to the requested records. In light of the City’s petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material.

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0340 Page 4 February 5, 2026 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; (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 Ms. Grogan and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Grogan may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality 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 municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate.

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0340 Page 5 February 5, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Ms. Grogan is advised that she may appeal the City’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Grogan 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andie Grogan