Ferretti, Alec v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20260856)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0856 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: On March 10, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of New Bedford (City) seeking an extension of time to produce responsive records and relief from the obligation to produce 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 the City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Alec Ferretti. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 27, 2025, Mr. Ferretti requested, “…a scan of the death certificate of [an identified individual], who died 20 May 2009.” Later on August 27, 2025, Mr. Ferretti clarified that his request was for “an uncertified copy of the document, not a certified copy.” Previous Appeals, Reconsideration, and Petition This request was the subject of previous appeals, a reconsideration and a petition from the City. See SPR25/2565 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 11, 2025); SPR25/2811 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (October 2, 2025 and November 4, 2025); SPR25/3437 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 4, 2025); SPR25/3732 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 31, 2025); and SPR26/0164 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 27, 2026). In my December 31st determination, I found that the City had not met its burden to withhold the responsive record under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. In my January 27th determination, I granted the City an extension of 30 business days. Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0856 Page 2 March 16, 2026 has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its petition, the City requests an extension of “[at] least 60 additional business days” to respond to the Mr. Ferretti. The City alternatively seeks relief from the obligation to provide records. In support of its request, the City argues: This matter was previously subject to a prior time petition, SPR26/0164, which the Supervisor granted, finding that the City had established good cause for a thirty business day extension. As grounds for the petition, the City explained that it had contacted the Registry of Vital Statistics (the “Registry”) to inquire whether there are any security and antifraud measures that would need to be applied to the requested “uncertified” vital record prior to its disclosure. Implementing such measures would be consistent with G.L. c. 46, and its purpose to ensure the security and proper use of vital records. The City has since received the enclosed response from the Registry. As indicated in the Registry’s response, guidance is forthcoming however, it is unknown when… The City respectfully requests that additional time be granted, in the least 60 additional business days or, more time as the Supervisor may deem fit, or any

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0856 Page 3 March 16, 2026 relief permitted under G.L.c. 66, § 10, as the required guidance from the Registry remains pending. This matter has already been subject to one extension for thirty business days as noted above. However, where the Supervisor determines that a request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. G.L.c. 66, § 10. Here, the requested record is part of a series of contemporaneous like-requests by the same requestor for uncertified vital records, specifically “scans” of death certificates that were received across the Commonwealth by at least 12 cities and towns. The requested records are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity rather, the requested information is about private citizens. Regarding whether these requests are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, the City cannot ask the requestor to identify themselves or, the reasons behind their request. However, one factor that may be considered by the Supervisor is that this particular request is one of a series of requests as noted above. Additionally, is the fact that processing a request for vital records incurs a fee, separate and apart from the Public Records fee schedule. Likewise, processing a request for vital records may require the requestor to identify themselves, present state-issued identification, and in some cases present additional documentation or even a court order. See e.g., G.L.c. 46, §2A. Under Public Records Law, the identity of a records requestor is irrelevant. Therefore, in requesting an uncertified scan of a vital record, the requestor may be seeking an avenue to obtain records at no charge, in a serial fashion, and potentially an avenue to not have to present identification or other requisite documentation. Therefore, pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4), the City respectfully requests that additional time be granted, in the least 60 additional business days or, more time as the Supervisor may deem fit, or any relief permitted under G.L.c. 66, § 10, as guidance from the Registry remains pending. Where I previously granted the City an extension of time, I am unable to grant the City’s request for an additional time extension. See SPR26/0164. Further, based on the information provided in the City’s petition, I find that the City has not sufficiently demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Consequently, relief from the obligation to provide responsive records cannot be granted.

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0856 Page 4 March 16, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, as noted above, I am unable to grant the City’s request for additional time, nor am I able to grant relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. Please note, the City 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: Alec Ferretti