Stoff, David v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20261158)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 9, 2026 SPR26/1158 Julia A. Ciollo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: I have received the petition of David Stoff appealing the response of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 21, 2025, Mr. Stoff requested: . . . a copy of the following document: 1980-07-28 Alewife Station and Garage Architecture Drawings. The record was part of the RFP for the Alewife Complex Redevelopment (MBTA RFP No. 242-24 RFP, withdrawn 11/10/2025). The record was created on, or about, January 20, 2025 and included in the bid package for the Alewife Station Redevelopment (Commonwealth COMMBUYS No. BD- 24- 1206-MBTA-MBTA-111999). The Authority responded on January 6, 2026, and assigned reference number R001546- 122125 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Mr. Stoff petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1158, 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 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. 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

Julia A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/1158 Page 2 April 9, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Stoff contends: The requested record was previously made available to private parties on the Commonwealth’s COMMBUYS bid platform. I am unaware of any restrictions or security protocols the MBTA placed on the records to allow disclosure to parties who accessed the plans via COMMBUYS. The initial Public Record Request did not include a description of why the record was sought. It follows that the custodian could make no inquiry into the “requestor’s purpose for seeking a particular record before determining whether to release it.” The Authority’s January 6th Response In its January 6, 2026 response, the Authority cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically,

Julia A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/1158 Page 3 April 9, 2026 the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its January 6th response, the Authority merely cites Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law without any explanation of the applicability of the exemption to the withholding of the responsive record. Based on the Authority’s response, it is unclear how the responsive record resembles the records listed as examples in the statute. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Particularly, it is not clear how the record resembles “blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings” that relate to security measures. It is also uncertain how the record is the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). Further, the Authority did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the requested record in its entirety pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the Authority has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the record is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. See PETA, at 289-90. The Authority must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear how the record can be withheld in its entirety. The Authority must explain whether the record can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide Mr. Stoff with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Stoff may further appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Julia A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/1158 Page 4 April 9, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Stoff