Sharkey, Kyle v. Norfolk District Attorney's Office (SPR 20260696)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 6, 2026 SPR26/0696 Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Records Access Officer Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office 42 Shawmut Road Canton, MA 02021 Dear Attorney Hunt: On February 27, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) requesting 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 Office furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Kyle Sharkey. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 13, 2026, Mr. Sharkey sought the following: [1] . . . Date Range Jan 2023-Present Emails including attachments [An identified individual]- [an identified email address] to or from [An identified individual]- [an identified email address] [Six identified] Keyword search terms[.] [2] . . . Date Range Jan 2023-Present to or from [An identified individual]- [an identified email address](excluding #1 request) Emails including attachments [Six identified] Keyword search terms[.] In an email to the Office and copied to this office on March 1, 2026, Mr. Sharkey objected to the Office’s petition. Subsequently, the Office provided additional information regarding its petition in an email to this office and Mr. Sharkey on March 4, 2026. 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

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/0696 Page 2 March 6, 2026 Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting 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 determination 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 agency 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; 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.

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/0696 Page 3 March 6, 2026 Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Office states in its request to assess a fee of $25 per hour for segregation and redaction that “[a]dditional redactions are . . . likely under G.L. c. 4, §§ 7(26) (c), (d), and (f)[.]” Under Exemption (f), the Office explains that, “[t]he email correspondence likely contains potential evidence and statements from witnesses[.]” The Office additionally provided the following regarding its request to assess fees for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (d) in its March 4, 2026 email to this office and the requestor: Redactions pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c) are necessary to protect the privacy interests of third parties. The responsive materials may contain sensitive personally identifiable information, including unpublished email addresses and telephone numbers. . . . In addition . . . redactions pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(d) are required as the materials may contain attorney work product, including communications or notes that reflect legal theories, case evaluations, mental impressions, or litigation strategy. Such details will be redacted or withheld. . . . Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Office has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Office has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Office to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Sharkey 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kyle Sharkey