Rocco, Jenna v. Canton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260367)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 18, 2026 SPR26/0367 Patricia A. Sherrill Deputy Chief of Administration Canton Police Department 1492 Washington Street Canton MA 02021 Dear Ms. Sherrill: I have received the petition of Jenna Rocco appealing the response of the Town of Canton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 17, 2025, Ms. Rocco requested “. . . emails and email attachments sent or received by employees, officers, or official of the Town of Canton that contain or reference the following [identified] names [including] …” [1] Sent from or received by Town of Canton email accounts[;] [2] Where the names appear in the subject line, body, or attachments[;] [3] Within the date range of November 5 2023 through January 17 2026[.] The Town responded on February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Rocco petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0367, was opened as a result. 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 (two) 2 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, 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

Patricia A. Sherrill SPR26/0367 Page 2 February 18, 2026 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). Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Rocco asserts, “[m]y request is narrowly tailored and seeks only electronic copies of emails and attachments that reference specific [identified] names within a defined date range. The request does not seek all emails, nor does it require a manual review of each email account in its entirety.… Additionally, the estimate does not provide a sufficiently itemized breakdown explaining how the projected hours were calculated, nor does it explain why the search could not be limited to a smaller subset of custodians or departments reasonably likely to possess responsive records. Given the limited scope of the request and the availability of electronic search tools, I believe the estimated fee exceeds what is permissible under the Public Records Law and functions as an undue barrier to access.” The Town’s February 2nd Response In the Town’s response, it provided a fee estimate of $9,700.00 and in support stated as follows: The Town maintains over hundred eighty-five (185) separate active email accounts, encompassing millions of records that are potentially responsive to your request(s). Even when allocating as little as an average of two (2) hours per account to search for, review, assemble, and redact as required by law responsive materials this would necessitate three hundred seventy (370) hours. The Town estimates that it will take, at a minimum, an additional twenty (20) hours to search for, review, assemble, and redact as required by law the potentially responsive physical records sought by your requests. As the Town is a municipality with a population in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) people, a fee will not be imposed for the first two (2) hours dedicated to your request. Based on the Town’s good faith estimate, a fee of nine thousand seven hundred ($9,700.00) dollars will be required which is based on an estimated 388 total hours at $25.00 an hour to complete your request(s). … Please note portions of the responsive records may be redacted and/or withheld pursuant to attorney-client privilege, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26) and/or as required by law.

Patricia A. Sherrill SPR26/0367 Page 3 February 18, 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. In light of the Department’s response, indicating that it “. . . maintains over hundred eighty-five (185) separate active email accounts, encompassing millions of records that are potentially responsive to your request(s)[,]” this office encourages Ms. Rocco and the Department to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Rocco 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).

Patricia A. Sherrill SPR26/0367 Page 4 February 18, 2026 Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Rocco and the Department communicate further as described above, Ms. Rocco may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jenna Rocco