Chritson, David v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20261030)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 6, 2026 SPR26/1030 Susan Tkaczuk Paralegal City of Somerville Law Department 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Ms. Tkaczuk: I have received the petition of David Chritson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 7, 2026, Mr. Chritson requested: [D]istinct records of the Somerville Police Department (“SPD”) -- including records in physical format (including papers, meeting notes, memos, etc.) and electronic format -- beginning on March 1, 2023 and continuing in a forward chronological order without skipping any records until the 2 hours of search and/or redaction are exhausted, after which you must stop the search or process to avoid fees. I am requesting only SPD internal records made or received by SPD’s [identified individual] and associated with . . . Responsive records must include [an identified individual’s] cell phone records, SMS, text messages, and app messages. Please search for physical and electronic records containing keywords or subject lines such as: [a list of four names.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0604 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 9, 2026). In my March 9th determination, I found that where the City intended to provide a response within the statutory timeframe, the basis of Mr. Chritson’s appeal was unclear. I understand the City provided a response to Mr. Chritson on February 25, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1030, was opened as a result. 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

Susan Tkaczuk SPR26/1030 Page 2 April 6, 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. The City’s February 25th Response In its February 25, 2026 response, the City states the following: After reviewing all our records and correspondence with you, we have discovered we provided you with [a named individual]’s emails containing the word “Chritson” between 3/18/2023-4/30/2024 (see attached). It is the position of the City of Somerville that the portion of your request seeking communications containing the word “David” does not comply with the Massachusetts Public Records Law (PRL), G.L. c. 66 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00. Your request is excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by the PRL. In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. Therefore, we did not have our IT Department search Richard Lavey’s communications for the word David from 3/23/2023-onward, because the search

Susan Tkaczuk SPR26/1030 Page 3 April 6, 2026 would not be required under the above case-law. Since you have already received all communications containing the word Chritson up to 4/30/2024, we will provide responsive records with the word Chritson dated on or after 5/1/2024. Any communications between 3/23/2023-onward, found with the words Christon or Christson will be provided. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson argues the following: The City’s states that, in response to a previous public records request, the City had previously “provided [me] with [a named individual]’s emails containing the word ‘Chritson’ between 3/18/2023 [and] 4/30/2024.” Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, I no longer have access to those responsive records. Despite informing the City of the above circumstances, the City has refused to re- send the requested records to me. In the City’s February 25 response, the City refused to search for responsive records with the keyword containing my name, “David.” The City states the following: “It is the position of the City of Somerville that the portion of your request seeking communications containing the word “David” does not comply with the Massachusetts Public Records Law (PRL), G.L. c. 66 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00. Your request is excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by the PRL.” Please be advised that according to 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(a), “upon request, a requester shall be entitled to receive in hand, by mail, by facsimile or electronically one copy of a public record or any desired portion of a public record.” In this case, where the City has previously provided Mr. Chritson with the requested records, and the regulations require that one copy of a public record be provided, I find that the first part of Mr. Chritson’s appeal is resolved. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the

Susan Tkaczuk SPR26/1030 Page 4 April 6, 2026 extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. Chritson and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Chritson may consider narrowing the scope of his request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of 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 the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Chritson and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. Chritson may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson