Transparency, Commonwealth v. Malden, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20260751)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 18, 2026 SPR26/0751 Alicia McNeil Department Records Administrator Legal Department City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. McNeil: I have received the petition of Commonwealth Transparency (requestor) appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 13, 2026, the requestor sought the following records: Please provide any documents/records in the possession or under the control of your town/city/municipality which contain the following data: [1] All dollars expended by the City of Malden on the following specific court cases: - 2181CV01458 in the Middlesex Superior Court - 2481CV02456 in the Middlesex Superior Court - 2481CV03069 in the Middlesex Superior Court - 2481CV03277 in the Middlesex Superior Court This request seeks any expenses incurred in the above listed specific court cases, any billing statements received from any lawyer and/or any law firm, and any payments made to lawyer and/or any law firm for the specific court cases listed above. [2] All hours expended by the City of Malden Solicitors office on the following specific court cases: - 2181CV01458 in the Middlesex Superior Court - 2481CV02456 in the Middlesex Superior Court - 2481CV03069 in the Middlesex Superior Court - 2481CV03277 in the Middlesex Superior Court This request seeks any time incurred in the above listed specific court cases, 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

Alicia A. McNeil SPR26/0751 Page 2 March 18, 2026 tracked by any member/employee of the City Solicitors Office, past or present. The City responded on March 2, 2026, and assigned reference number 2026-0080 to the request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, the requestor petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0751, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response to this office and the requestor on March 17, 2026. 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 the appeal petition, the requestor contends the following: The response provided was deficient in the following ways: 1. No records from prior to 4/25/2022 were provided. 2. The records referred to in the above response: “For the timeframe of 4/25/22- 4/25/25 please see FOIA #2025-0120.” Are unavailable to the public, see attachment (Exhibit 1) and cannot be viewed or downloaded. 3. The records referred to in the above response and provided in the attached attachment do not include the first lawsuit, 2181CV01458 in the Middlesex Superior Court. 4. The records provided do not indicate which lawsuit the responding records relate to. 5. There are no records provided for the second part of the request, All hours expended by the City of Malden Solicitors office. Upon review of the appeal petition, it appears that the requestor claims only that the City

Alicia A. McNeil SPR26/0751 Page 3 March 18, 2026 possesses additional responsive records, and does not object to the redactions made in the records provided by the City. The City’s February 13th and March 17th Responses In its February 13, 2026 response, the City provides numerous records in redacted form, and explains the following: For the timeframe of 4/25/22-4/25/25 please see FOIA #2025-0120. For the timeframe of 4/26/25-6/27/25 please see FOIA #2025-0185. For the timeframe of 06/28/25-present please see the attached document. In its March 17, 2026 response, the City further explains “that all these dockets referenced by Open Commonwealth are still in active litigation.” The City goes on to state that “the City of Malden requests that you not opine on this appeals as it is part of ongoing litigation or, alternatively, that you instruct OC to define the timeframe for the records sought.” Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Middlesex Superior Court. See Malden Public Schools v. Rebecca S. Murray, et al. (Middlesex Superior Court Docket No. 2181-CV- 01458, Mar. 16, 2026); City of Malden v. Manza Arthur, et al., (Middlesex Superior Court Docket No. 2481-CV-02456, Dec. 10, 2025); City of Malden v. William Francis Galvin, et al., (Middlesex Superior Court Docket No. 2481-CV-03069 Dec. 19, 2025); and City of Malden v. Manza Arthur, et al., (Middlesex Superior Court Docket No. 2481-CV-03277, Dec. 10, 2025). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of these actions could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Alicia A. McNeil SPR26/0751 Page 4 March 18, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Commonwealth Transparency