Kawamoto, Noemi v. Chelsea, City of (SPR 20260944)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 27, 2026 SPR26/0944 Jessica C. Morales Paralegal Law Department City of Chelsea 500 Broadway, Room 307 Chelsea, MA 02150 Dear Ms. Morales: I have received the petition of Attorney Noemi Kawamoto, of Brooks & DeRensis, appealing the response of the City of Chelsea (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 10, 2026, Attorney Kawamoto requested the following: [1] Any and all emails sent to or received from an email address ending in “@dwpm.com” for the time period beginning August 1, 2024 through the present [2] Any and all emails sent to or received from an email address ending in “@massaudubon.org” for time period beginning August 1, 2024 through the present and containing any of the following terms: [a list of search terms] [3] Any and all communications other than emails (such as letters, text messages, and voice messages) between the City of Chelsea and [a named individual] for the time period beginning August 1, 2024 through the present [4] Any and all communications other than emails (such as letters, text messages, and voice messages) between the City of Chelsea and [a named individual] for the time period beginning August 1, 2024 through the present[.] The City responded on March 6, 2026, and assigned reference number 2198 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney Kawamoto petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0944, 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

Jessica C. Morales SPR26/0944 Page 2 March 27, 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. The City’s March 6th Response In its March 6, 2026 response, the City provides numerous responsive records, and cites the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product for withholding others. The City also provides a privilege log, and explains the following: Please find responsive records for the year 2024 in the link below for your review. Our team is conducting a diligent review of the records for the remaining years in the request; these will be produced to you on a rolling basis as the review is completed. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, Attorney Kawamoto argues the following: We are counsel to Yihe Forbes, LLC, the property owner defendant in pending Suffolk Superior Court receivership proceedings in which Chelsea is petitioner and Attorney Alex Hogan of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury and Murphy, P.C. (“DWPM”) is Receiver. Aspects of that case are now on appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Request 1 of the public records request seeks emails between the Receiver’s law firm DWPM (email addresses ending in “@dwpm.com”) and Chelsea. While Chelsea is a party (petitioner) and the Receiver is an “interested party” in the pending case, they are separately represented and, crucially, the Receiver is court- appointed in the case, an officer of the court, and as Receiver has a fiduciary duty – per applicable case law – to promote the interests of all parties and persons implicated by the receivership and property in receivership, including crucially our client, the property owner/defendant Yihe, and a duty of transparency with

Jessica C. Morales SPR26/0944 Page 3 March 27, 2026 respect to those matters. It therefore stands to reason that the City and Receiver cannot – for themselves or one another - invoke a privilege to shield from Yihe and us as its counsel information that bears directly (or indirectly) on Yihe’s interests in its property and in the receivership case. 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 Supreme Judicial Court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation. See Shanghai Commercial Bank Limited v. Yihe Forbes, LLC, Supreme Judicial Court Docket No. SJC-13879 (Mar. 24, 2026). 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). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of the attorney-client privilege or Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Noemi Kawamoto, Esq.