Robbins, Esq., Jeffrey v. Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (SPR 20260527)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 27, 2026 SPR26/0527 Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. General Counsel Massachusetts Convention Center Authority 415 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210 Dear Attorney Scanlon: I have received the petition of Jeffrey S. Robbins, Esq. appealing the response of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). 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. SPR26/0527 Page 2 February 27, 2026 Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the Authority. See SPR26/0439 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 13, 2026). In my February 13th determination, I found the Authority could assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material under Exemptions (c), (d), (f), and (n) in the responsive records. In addition to its petition, the Authority also provided Attorney Robbins with a fee estimate dated February 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s fee estimate, Attorney Robbins petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0527, was opened as a result. 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. 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Authority’s February 6th Fee Estimate In its February 6, 2026 response, the Authority provided a fee estimate of “at least $100,000” to produce the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the Authority provided the following information: Due to the breadth and scope of your Requests, the Authority is unable to produce responsive records within the 10-day statutory limit. As currently framed, your Requests are overly broad and burdensome, and would require the collection, review, and possible redaction of over 163,000 documents. Specifically, your 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)). In addition, potentially records are likely to implicate several of the exemptions provided under the Public Records Law including G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26) subsections (a), (c), (d), (f), and (n). Similarly, your second request, which seeks records concerning inquiries from seven governmental bodies, likewise fails to

Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. SPR26/0527 Page 3 February 27, 2026 “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. That request similarly implicates several of the Public Records Law exemptions including G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) subsections (a), (c), (d), and (f)… Notwithstanding the foregoing, and without waiving any of the Authority’s rights, the Authority estimates that the collection, review, and possible redaction of the at least 163,000 documents will require at least 4,000 hours. At the statutory rate of $25 per hour, the Authority expects a cost of at least $100,000. Alternatively, if you wish to modify the scope of your Requests to specific identifiable documents, that may reduce the amount necessary to review, segregate and redact responsive records. The Authority is willing to work with you to refine these requests to better address the information you seek while reducing the time required for processing. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Robbins argued: There simply cannot be a “burdensome” amount of documents to be collected given the limited nature of the requests and the extremely narrow time frame of the documents in question. There is nothing “overbroad” about these requests, and there is nothing “burdensome” about them… [W]e are not seeking documents in the possession of offices or agencies other than the MCCA. There is no need to obtain documents from outside of the MCCA. We seek public records in the MCCA’s possession and only in the MCCA’s possession. Given the sophisticated data retrieval capacities of the MCCA, it should require little time and effort to identify the search terms… This is, in short, precisely the kind of game playing by a public agency that should not be tolerated. 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. SPR26/0527 Page 4 February 27, 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. In light of the Authority’s fee estimate, where it has identified 163,000 potentially responsive documents, 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 If outstanding issues remain after Attorney Robbins and the Authority communicate further as described above, Attorney Robbins may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Kevin P. Scanlon, Esq. SPR26/0527 Page 5 February 27, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeffrey S. Robbins, Esq. Alain P. Mathieu, Esq. Liza Zayas