Webb, David v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20261077)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2026 SPR26/1077 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Manning: On March 25, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester (City) seeking an extension of time to produce 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, David Webb. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). From February 24, 2026 to February 26, 2026, Mr. Webb sought the following in nine separate requests: The February 24, 2026 Requests [1] [A]ll emails received during the morning of 2-24-26 by [an identified email address][;] [2] [A]ll emails received during the morning of 2-24-26 by [a second identified email address][;] The February 25, 2026 Requests [3] BOPS investigation with a disposition of “Policy Failure” from 2020 to current[;] [4] [P]olice report and BWC from [an identified] Officer . . . for a traffic stop on Chandler Street 1-23-26 at approximately 2:30pm[;] [5] [P]olice reports related to the arrests outside of Bocado at approximately 10:30[a.m.] . . . February 25th 2025[;] The February 26, 2026 Requests [6] [T]he 911 call associated with [two identified incident numbers][;] 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

Michael Manning SPR26/1077 Page 2 March 31, 2026 [7] [A] copy of the BWC for [an identified] Officer . . . from [an identified] incident . . . which occurred 2026-02-25 12:54 at SALEM SQ[;] [8] BWC for [two identified officers] . . . and any written report for [an identified] incident . . . that occurred 2026-02-25 14:19 on CEDAR ST[;] [9] BWC from [an identified] Officer . . . from the Tuesday 24 September 2024 0835 hours welfare check on [an identified individual]. 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 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 seeks “an extension of thirty business days” to produce responsive records and provides the following information in support of its request. Since February 24, 2024, the City has received . . . 1,300 public records requests. . . . Furthermore, only a small subset of City employees has the requisite

Michael Manning SPR26/1077 Page 3 March 31, 2026 knowledge and technical expertise to redact the requested body-worn camera footage. The City expects review [sic] and make required redactions pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and Exemptions (a), (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. A preliminary review of the responsive records suggest that the following information is present and would require redaction: private phone numbers and email addresses of parties named in the responsive records, the identities of voluntary witnesses or complaints, and information which would be prejudicial to active and on-going investigations. Conclusion In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure 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 days. Please note, Mr. Webb 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: David Webb