Mathieu, Gregory v. Malden, City of (SPR 20260875)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0875 Joanne Perperian Records Access Officer City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: On March 11, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Malden (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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 the City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Gregory S. Mathieu, Esq., of Davids & Cohen, P.C.. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 25, 2026, Attorney Mathieu requested “all reports, findings, records, documents, investigative files, 911 calls and recordings, photographs in their JPEG form, video files, interviews, interview notes, draft reports, statements (recorded, transcribed or otherwise), evidence lists, press releases, social media posts, and all other documents and/or items, concerning, relating, or referring to [an identified address].” Petition 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 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 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0875 Page 2 March 16, 2026 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) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the City requests “an additional 30 business days…” In support of its request the City provides the following information: Given the broad scope of the request and the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the City submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Therefore, the City hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. Additionally, the employee who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process have many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The City will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. The City further explains: … the City appreciates the communications with Attorney Mathieu regarding efforts to narrow the scope of his request. During these discussions, the substantial amount of time required to review and process the responsive records—particularly in light of the extensive redactions necessary—was explained. Attorney Mathieu was advised that narrowing the scope of the request would significantly reduce the time and cost associated with fulfilling it; however, he later indicated that he was unable to further narrow the scope of the request. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The City is granted an extension of 30 business

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0875 Page 3 March 16, 2026 days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality 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). The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates - Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 under a

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0875 Page 4 March 16, 2026 petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the City argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f): Based on the initial documents provided to you by [an identified lieutenant] on February 25, the following records were identified after a search was conducted from January 1, 2025 through February 25, 2026 relating to [an identified address], in Malden: • (141) documented responses to (Computer Aided Dispatch Records) • (57) Initial Report Lists, including initial and supplemental reports by the responding Malden Police Officers • (103) phone calls to MPD/911 recordings (this does not include follow up calls or calls of a similar nature to the same incident) • (26) hours of body-worn camera footage . . . The first files contain a complete Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) history of the Malden Police Department’s 141 documented responses, to … Florence Street, during the requested time frame of 01/01/2025 through 02/25/2026. A brief review of these records revealed that multiple documents contain materials pertaining to ongoing investigations or prosecutions (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f)); personal identifying information (G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)); medical, health, and hospital records (G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)); and Criminal Offender Record Information (“CORI”) (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a); G.L. c. 6, §§167A, 172); and thereof this information is exempt from disclosure under the public records law and these records will be withheld. The second files contains a complete Incident Report (IC) list of the 57 initial and supplemental reports filed by the responding Malden Police Officers during the requested time frame of 01/01/2025 through 02/25/2026. As noted above, a brief review of these records revealed that multiple documents contain materials pertaining to on-going investigations or prosecutions (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f)); personal identifying information (G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)); medical, health, and hospital records (G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)); and Criminal Offender Record Information (“CORI”) (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a); G.L. c. 6, §§167A, 172); and thereof this information is exempt from disclosure under the public records law and these records will be withheld. In light of the City’s petition, I find the City 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, the City may assess a fee for the segregation and

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0875 Page 5 March 16, 2026 redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Attorney Mathieu and the City to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the City must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Attorney Mathieu 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: Gregory S. Mathieu, Esq.