Svagdis, Jessica v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20260800)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 11, 2026 SPR26/0800 William J. Doyle, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3150 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: On March 6, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) seeking 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, it is my understanding that MassDOT furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Jessica Svagdis. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 24, 2026, Ms. Svagdis requested the following: [1] Any and all communications, including written agreements, relating to requests for information, data sharing, cooperation, or assistance between the RMV (including any staff, officials, or units) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) divisions including but not limited to [identified agencies][;] [2] Any and all records sufficient to show the number of individuals whose RMV driver records or information, as defined by 940 CMR 37.03(1) and 940 CMR 37.03(2) were requested, disclosed, or shared with the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (“DCJIS”) and state and local law enforcement agencies pursuant to 940 CMR 37.04(7) and 940 CMR 37.04(8), including aggregate counts, summaries, logs, or reports[;] [3] Any and all certifications, agreements, memoranda of understanding, policies, procedures, or other records governing the disclosure or sharing of RMV driver records or information with DCJIS and state and local law enforcement agencies pursuant to 930 CMR 37.04(7) and 940 CMR 37.04(8)[;] [4] Any audit reports, reviews, or oversight records maintained or received by the RMV concerning compliance with 940 CMR 37.04(5) – (8) by DCJIS or state and 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

William J. Doyle, Esq. SPR26/0800 Page 2 March 11, 2026 local law enforcement agencies. 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.

William J. Doyle, Esq. SPR26/0800 Page 3 March 11, 2026 Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, MassDOT argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (d): . . . The Massachusetts Public Records Law allows redaction under Exemption (c) for records likely to contain “personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Redaction under Exemption (d) is intended to avoid the premature release of materials that could taint an ongoing deliberative process. MassDOT is withholding the following [categories of records, specific records or portions of records] under this exemption, as they pertain to negotiations and/or discussions which have not been completed. In light of MassDOT’s petition, I find that MassDOT has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, MassDOT may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, MassDOT may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable MassDOT to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Svagdis 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: Jessica Svagdis