Yuan, Ziqiang v. Quincy, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20260746)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 17, 2026 SPR26/0746 Brenda G. Fernandez Public Records Coordinator City of Quincy Office of the City Clerk 1305 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Ms. Fernandez: I have received the petition of Ziqiang Susan Yuan appealing the response of the City of Quincy (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 12, 2025, Ms. Yuan requested “the following records for all lawsuits involving the city from January 1, 2020 to the present[:]” [1] For each case: [a] Case name and docket number[;] [b] Court/jurisdiction[;] [c] Date opened and date closed (or current status) [;] [d] Any written summaries or memos provided to the City Council[;] [e] Any settlement agreements or final judgments[;] [2] For costs associated with each case: [a] Total cost to the city[;] [b] Itemized expenses (outside counsel fees, hourly rates, invoices, expert witness fees, settlements, penalties, interest, etc.)[;] [c] Whether any portion was covered by municipal insurance[.] The City responded on December 15, 2025, February 11, 2026, and February 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, and claiming to not yet have received responsive records, Ms. Yuan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0746, 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 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

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR26/0746 Page 2 March 17, 2026 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Yuan’s status as a City Councilor has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The City’s December 15th, February 11th, and February 12th Responses In its December 15, 2025 response, a City representative confirmed receipt of Ms. Yuan’s request and stated, “I have forwarded your request to the solicitor office.” In an email correspondence dated February 11, 2026, Ms. Yuan requested that the City “confirm whether the Clerk’s Office has followed up with the Solicitor’s Office to obtain the records responsive to [her] request[,]” Subsequently, in its initial response dated February 11, 2026, a City representative stated, “I will forward your request to the Solicitor office and remind [the City Solicitor][.]” In its second February 11, 2026 response, a representative of the City Solicitor’s stated the following: This is a request from a City Councilor - I never treated it as a public records request. Moreover, the records requested either do not exist or are retained a format that was not in the [‘]request.[’] The response would simply be “No such records in the possession custody or control of the City are responsive to this request.” . . .

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR26/0746 Page 3 March 17, 2026 Councilor Yuan: I am happy to meet with you and review . . . Please contact me to set something up and we can review. In an email correspondence responding to the City on February 12, 2026, Ms. Yuan explained that her request “was made in [her] capacity as a resident” of the City and asked that the City, “proceed with responding to [her] public records request.” In its February 12, 2026 response, a representative of the City Solicitor’s stated, “[k]indly accept this response to your records request. . . . No such records are in the possession custody or control of the City that are responsive to this request.” Current Appeal In her March 4, 2026 appeal petition, Ms. Yuan contends the following: The City did not provide a substantive response within ten business days. Instead, the City responded approximately fifty-eight days later, stating: “No such records are in the possession, custody or control of the City that are responsive to this request.” . . . It is difficult to reconcile the City’s assertion that no responsive records exist with the fact that the City is necessarily involved in litigation and must maintain individual case files, settlement agreements, invoices for outside counsel, and related financial records in order to conduct municipal business. If the City does not maintain a centralized litigation log, that does not negate the existence of such underlying records. Records in Existence; Preferred Format Based on the information provided in Ms. Yuan’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses responsive records. If the City does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Additionally, please be advised, G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d) provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he records access officer shall, to the extent feasible, provide the public record in the requestor’s preferred format or, in the absence of a preferred format, in a searchable, machine readable format.” G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). Upon review of the file, I find that where Ms. Yuan did not describe the preferred format of the responsive records she seeks in her request, it is unclear why the City has not provided any existing responsive records that, as noted in its second February 11th response, “are retained a format that was not in the [‘]request.[’]” The City must clarify these matters.

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR26/0746 Page 4 March 17, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Yuan with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Yuan may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ziqiang Susan Yuan