Voss, Gretchen v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20261167)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 3, 2026 SPR26/1167 Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office 45 Shawmut Road Canton, MA 02021 Dear Attorney Hunt: On March 31, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) seeking 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 Office furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Gretchen Voss. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 17, 2026, Ms. Voss requested “access to and a copy of all communications between [the NDAO] and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, between the dates of February 2, 2022 through [the date of her request] concerning the Commonwealth’s case against [an identified individual].” Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The 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

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/1167 Page 2 April 3, 2026 first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Office argued the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (d), (f), (n), and (o): The undersigned records access officer has identified 27,409 pages of potentially responsive records from the search query… The undersigned records access officer notes that while EOTSS previously was able to deduplicate email correspondence, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief, EOTSS no longer has that capability. Thus, significant time is required to organize and review email correspondence, particularly when there are multiple recipients on each email… The undersigned records access officer reasonably anticipates that among the 27,409 pages, there is sensitive information that necessitates redactions extending beyond the statutory requirements outlined in G. L. c. 7, §(26)(a). These

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/1167 Page 3 April 3, 2026 additional redactions are likely under G. L. c. 4, §§ 7(26) (c), (d), (f), (n), and (o). Approval to charge for the extra time involved in these redactions would ensure thorough protection of sensitive information… Redactions pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c) are necessary to protect the privacy interests of third parties. The responsive materials may contain sensitive personally identifiable information, including unpublished email addresses and telephone numbers of private individuals. These privacy interests of the third parties outweigh any public interest in the information, as these details bear no relation to assessing whether public servants are carrying out their duties lawfully and efficiently… Redactions pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(d) and (f) are required as the materials may contain attorney work product, including internal communications or notes about the requested materials that reflect legal theories, case evaluations, mental impressions, or litigation strategy. Such details will be redacted or withheld… Redactions pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(n) and (o) may be necessary to withhold sensitive technical and contact information, including full cellular telephone numbers, links to internal work product, Zoom meeting access information, and employees’ personal email addresses or telephone numbers. Disclosure of such information would create a risk of unauthorized access and misuse, including unsolicited or disruptive communications, harassment, or spoofing, thereby interfering with employees’ ability to perform essential, time- sensitive duties and compromising both individual privacy and the integrity and security of governmental operations… Based on this Records Access Officer’s experience, the average time needed to review each page, assess responsive content, and apply appropriate redactions or withholdings pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26), is approximately one minute per page. Therefore, it is estimated that it will take approximately 457 hours ((1 minute x 27,409 pages)/60 minutes) to complete the segregation and redactions. The good faith cost estimate for this request is $11,425 (457 hours x $25 per hour). This fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the NDAO to comply with this request. Moreover, this fee is necessary such that the request could not be prudently completed without segregation and redactions pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §§ 7(26) (a), (c), (d), (f), (n), and (o). In light of the Office’s petition, I find the Office 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 Office may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material.

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/1167 Page 4 April 3, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Ms. Voss and the Office to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency 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 agency to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Office must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Please note, Ms. Voss 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: Gretchen Voss