Robbins, Esq., Jeffrey v. Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (SPR 20260439)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 13, 2026 SPR26/0439 Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. General Counsel Massachusetts Convention Center Authority 415 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210 Dear Attorney Scanlon: On February 6, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (Authority) 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, Jeffrey S. Robbins, Esq. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 23, 2026, Attorney Robbins requested the following: [1] All documents referencing [an identified individual]. These documents will by definition be limited to the period May 1, 2025 through the present, given when it was that [an identified individual] began working at the MCCA, and therefore should be quite easy to collect and produce. [2] The following documents dated at any time from November 1, 2025 to the present: all documents referring or relating to the requests for information, testimony or documents from the MCCA issued by any Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, or by any member of the Massachusetts Legislature, or by any officer, representative or employee of the office of the Governor of Massachusetts, the office of the Lieutenant Governor, the office of the Inspector General, the office of the Secretary of State, the office of the State Auditor and/or the office of the State Ethics Commission. [3] All documents dated at any time from November 1, 2025 to the present referencing the MCCA’s Director of Information Security, [an identified individual]. 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, Esq. SPR26/0439 Page 2 February 13, 2026 In correspondence emailed to this office on February 13, 2026, Attorney Robbins objected to the Authority’s petition. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not 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. 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 a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 understanding 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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.

Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. SPR26/0439 Page 3 February 13, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the Authority argued the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (d), (f) and (n): Mr. Robbins’ first and third requests – which seek “all documents” concerning two high-level employees without any description of the records actually sought – does not include “a reasonable description of the requested record” (950 CMR 32.06(1)(b)) and are therefore egregiously overbroad and unduly burdensome. In addition, potentially records are likely to implicate several of the exemptions provided under the Public Records Law: [1] First, potentially responsive records will likely contain documents that are exempt under G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)… Given the subjects of this request – in particular, the Chief Human Resources Officer – potentially-responsive records are inextricably linked to “personnel” matters such as employee performance, disciplinary history, and other sensitive and confidential information. Because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that the personnel exemption is near-absolute for records “useful in making employment decisions” (see Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000), the Authority must conduct a meticulous, line-by-line review of every email and memorandum to ensure no protected personnel data is inadvertently released. In addition, the responsive records will likely contain intimate details of a highly personal nature regarding not only the subjects named in the request, but also third-party employees. Because the Chief Human Resources Officer is inherently a party to communications involving sensitive employee information – including, for example, FMLA leave requests, disability accommodations, and health insurance matters – the requested records will contain a high density of private medical and financial information. The Authority will need to perform a complex balancing test for each document, weighing the public’s right to know against the significant privacy interests of these non-subject employees, whose identities and private information must remain confidential. [2] Second, potentially responsive documents will likely contain technical data protected under G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(n)… The Authority expects to find responsive records containing network architecture diagrams, vulnerability assessments, and specific response protocols for data breaches. A technical review is therefore required to redact specific information contained in the Authority’s digital defense systems—including, for example, non-public IP addresses, sever locations, and encryption methodologies. [3] Third, potentially responsive records will likely contain intra-agency communications protected under G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(d)… Both [two identified individuals] serve in high-level advisory capacities; therefore, their

Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. SPR26/0439 Page 4 February 13, 2026 correspondence frequently involves pre-decisional policy discussions, such as draft security policies or proposed changes to personnel handbooks. The Authority must therefore laboriously separate purely factual material, which may be public, from the opinions, recommendations, and deliberations contained within the same documents to avoid chilling future internal debate, and compromising the Authority’s decisionmaking integrity. [4] Fourth, potentially responsive records will likely contain investigatory materials protected under G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f)… Both the Chief Human Resources Officer and the Chief Information Security Officer often oversee projects such as internal misconduct investigations and forensic security audits. Disclosing these records during the pendency of any active investigation could easily prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement or reveal confidential investigative techniques. The Authority must therefore evaluate each record to ensure it does not disclose the identities of confidential witnesses, whistleblower, or complainants who provided information under an expectation of privacy, as well a[s] ensure that any ongoing investigations are not compromised… Mr. Robbins’ second request (seeking records concerning inquiries from seven governmental bodies) likewise fails to “include a reasonable description of the requested record” as it seeks “all documents” relating to every request from six different constitutional offices and the entire state Legislature. Responding to this request will require a search across every department and electronic database within the Authority. The magnitude and difficulty of this search is compounded by the fact that the records are distributed across various administrative, legal, and operational files. The Authority will therefore be required to devote hundreds of hours to searching, compiling, and reviewing these records prior to disclosure. In addition, potentially responsive records are likewise likely to implicate several of the exemptions provided under the Public Records Law: [1] First, potentially responsive records will likely contain investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view, which are protected under G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f). Because the requests seek all documents relating to inquiries from the Inspector General, the State Ethics Commission, and the State Auditor, the responsive records will consist almost entirely of materials gathered for active or recently concluded oversight investigations. The Authority must therefore conduct a granular review of these case files to ensure that disclosure does not “prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement” or compromise confidential investigative techniques. This process is exceptionally time- consuming, as it will require the Authority to coordinate with the investigating bodies to determine which materials remain sensitive or would reveal the identities of confidential witnesses and/or whistleblowers… [3] Third, potentially responsive records will likely contain intra-agency communications reflecting policy positions being developed, which are protected

Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. SPR26/0439 Page 5 February 13, 2026 under G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(d). Before the Authority provides testimony or information to a legislative committee or to the Governor’s office, it engages in an extensive internal process of drafting, debating, and refining its responses. The Authority must review such internal records to segregate purely factual data from the candid opinions and recommendations of Authority personnel. This review is essential to prevent a chilling effect on the Authority’s ability to deliberate internally before issuing final statements to oversight bodies. [4] Fourth, potentially responsive records will likely contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, which are protected under G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c). Inquiries from bodies such as the State Ethics Commission or the Inspector General frequently involve allegations against specific, named individuals or low-level employees who are mentioned in the course of an audit. The Authority must perform a line-by-line review of all investigative correspondence to redact the identities and personal information of employees who have not been the subject of formal disciplinary action. This review is necessary to ensure the privacy rights of third-party individuals are protected from the unwarranted invasion that would result from the wholesale disclosure of unproven investigative leads and/or personal data. In light of the Authority’s petition, I find the Authority 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 Authority may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Further, please be advised, records custodians may assess fees for time spent segregating or redacting records where such segregation or redaction is required by law. See 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(d) (stating that fee for segregation or redaction is permissible when approved by the Supervisor or when required by law (emphasis added)). Where the Authority also seeks to assess fees for segregation and redaction pursuant to Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, which are required by law, I find it unnecessary to opine on the portions of the Authority’s petition seeking permission to assess fees for segregating and redacting the records pursuant to Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege. 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.

Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. SPR26/0439 Page 6 February 13, 2026 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 Attorney Robbins and the Authority to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Attorney Robbins may consider narrowing the scope of his request to enable the Authority to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The Authority 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) (an agency 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 agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Authority may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Please note, Attorney Robbins 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). It is my understanding that Attorney Robbins has also appealed the Authority’s February 6, 2026 response and fee estimate regarding this request, resulting in a new appeal which is currently opened as SPR26/0572. A determination on that matter will be issued separately within ten business days of receipt of that appeal.

Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. SPR26/0439 Page 7 February 13, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeffrey S. Robbins, Esq. Alain P. Mathieu, Esq.