Kim, William v. Attorney General's Office (SPR 20260489)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 24, 2026 SPR26/0489 Hanne Rush, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Rush: I have received the petition of Jaehyun (William) Kim appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 25, 2026, Mr. Kim requested the following: [1] All records, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, memoranda, reports, complaints, investigative files, notes, referrals, and internal analyses, that reference or relate to: [a] Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS); [an identified individual]; Colleges of the Fenway; and Wentworth Institute of Technology for the period January l, 2000 through the present (2026). [2] All internal or external communications between the Attorney General’s Office and any other Massachusetts state or local agency concerning MCPHS, including but not limited to communications with: [a] the Department of Higher Education, the Board of Higher Education, the Department of Public Health, the Office for Civil Rights (state or federal coordination), BRIC, The Boston Police Department, or any licensing or accreditation-related body including the Board of Registration in Pharmacy, Nursing, and other related health professions. [3] Records of complaints, inquiries, referrals, or investigations involving MCPHS that were received, initiated, reviewed, declined, closed, or otherwise handled by the Attorney General’s Office during the same period. [4] Policies, guidance, manuals, or internal documentation governing how the 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

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/0489 Page 2 February 24, 2026 Attorney General’s Office handles complaints, investigations, referrals, or public records requests involving private institutions of higher education, including MCPHS. [5] Any notices, findings, determinations, settlement communications, warnings, compliance communications, or correspondence sent to or received from MCPHS or its representatives that are maintained by the Attorney General’s Office. The AGO responded on February 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Kim petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0489, 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. Current Appeal In his January 21, 2025 appeal, Mr. Kim stated, “[t]he Attorney General’s Office confirmed receipt of the request but has provided no response as of February 9, 2026, well beyond the ten-business-day statutory deadline. No records were produced, no lawful extension was requested, and no written denial identifying specific exemptions was issued.” The AGO’s February 9th response In its February 9, 2026 response, the AGO cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019) and Friedman v. Division of Admin. Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 816 (2024) and stated as follows:

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/0489 Page 3 February 24, 2026 … a public records request must “reasonably describe” the records being sought so that a custodian “can identify and locate [the requested records] promptly.” Requests that are articulated with very broad language that call upon personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what records may or may not be responsive to the request do not meet the statutory standard for “reasonableness.” The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non- lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” (Emphasis in the original.) As written, your request does not meet the reasonableness standard as it requires us to interpret and make fine judgments about your request in order to identify particular records that may be responsive. Your request is too broad in scope to assist us in focusing our search for responsive records and, even if we were able to identify the universe of responsive records, then requires us to make conclusions about the content of the records in order to determine if they are responsive. Additionally, for such a broad request, we would be unable to confirm that any records identified as responsive to your request constitute the entire universe of responsive records because, although we are able to search for electronic records, we are unable to review each and every piece of paper created, received, and maintained by the AGO. The public records law permits a custodian of public records to charge requesters for certain costs associated with responding to public records requests. An agency may require payment of that fee prior to complying with a public records request. Based on the foregoing we cannot process your request as written any further. Clearly, our Office, or any custodian, could not respond with responsive non- exempt records without a substantial time expenditure (and resultant cost to you) far outside what the public records law requires or intended. 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,

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/0489 Page 4 February 24, 2026 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 addition, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). The Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Based on the foregoing, this office encourages Mr. Kim and the AGO to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Kim may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable time periods or factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The AGO must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Hanne Rush, Esq. SPR26/0489 Page 5 February 24, 2026 Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Kim and the AGO communicate further as described above, Mr. Kim may appeal the substantive nature of the AGO’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jaehyun (William) Kim