Wall, Thomas v. Haverhill, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20260632)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 10, 2026 SPR26/0632 Kaitlin M. Wright Records Access Officer Haverhill City Hall, Room 118 Four Summer Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Dear Ms. Wright: I have received the petition of Patrick Courtney, of Foundation for Fair Contracting MA, appealing the response of the City of Haverhill (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 30, 2026, Thomas Wall, of Heat & Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local union No. 6, referenced the “Consentino School Building Project,” and requested the following: [1] All OPM, CM, HVAC Sub-Trade, Plumbing Sub-Trade contract documents [2] All correspondences referring to Insulation concerning the HVAC contract [3] All correspondences referring to Insulation concerning the Plumbing contract [4] All reports (OPM, CM, Designer, Progress, Inspection, QC, Photo/video documentation, etc.) containing information related to Insulation concerning the HVAC contract [5] All reports (OPM, CM, Designer, Progress, Inspection, QC, Photo/video documentation, etc.) containing information related to Insulation concerning the Plumbing contract [6] All meeting minutes and recordings pertaining to Insulation concerning the HVAC contract [7] All meeting minutes and recordings pertaining to Insulation concerning the Plumbing contract [8] Change orders concerning HVAC Insulation [9] Change orders concerning Plumbing Insulation [10] All applications for payments, payment reports and invoices concerning CM contract, HVAC trade contract, Plumbing Trade Contract [11] Any additional documentation concerning the installation of HVAC insulation or Plumbing insulation[.] 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

Kaitlin M. Wright SPR26/0632 Page 2 March 10, 2026 The City responded on February 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Courtney petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0632, 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. The City’s February 20th Response In its February 20, 2026 response, the City states the following: G. L. c. 66, §10(a)(i) requires that public records requests “reasonably describe” the records sought. Requests that are “broad, sweeping”; that lack “specificity”; and that make “no effort to define or limit the records sought” fail to meet this standard. See Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 816-820 (2024). Put another way by the Superior Court in Chawla v. Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue, 1784CV02087 at *2 (Mass. Super. Jan. 23, 2019) ... . . . Here, like Chawla, the language of your request is very broad and calls upon non- lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of your request and make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related to the category of materials you requested. You have therefore failed to satisfy the statutory standard. Accordingly, the City requests that you modify your request to reasonably describe the records you seek, such as narrowing the timeframe during which the responsive records were created; and specifying who created and/or received the responsive records.

Kaitlin M. Wright SPR26/0632 Page 3 March 10, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Courtney contends that “I believe Mr. Wall was quite clear in his initial request and I would think the City would be able to complete some of his request and not just issue a blanket denial.” Reasonable Description of the Records Sought Please be aware, 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 has 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. 1784CV02087, 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 judgements 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). Additionally, 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;

Kaitlin M. Wright SPR26/0632 Page 4 March 10, 2026 (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 Mr. Courtney and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Courtney may consider narrowing the scope of his request, for example by providing a date range, names or titles of senders and recipients, or a list of search terms, in order to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City 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). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Courtney and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. Courtney may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Courtney Alexander M. Castro, Esq.