Open Commonwealth, v. Malden, City of (SPR 20261185)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 13, 2026 SPR26/1185 Joanne Perperian Records Access Officer City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: I have received the petition of Open Commonwealth (requestor) appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 26, 2026, the requestor sought: . . . [F]or the dates December 1, 2025, through February 26, 2026: [1] Any emails received from [an identified individual] including but not limited to the [specified email address]. [2] Any emails sent to [an identified individual] including but not limited to the [specified email address]. This request seeks electronic mail which includes any email account(s) under your control and for any fully qualified domain names under your control. This request includes all electronic mail attachments and metadata. This request includes but is not limited to electronic and/or physical documents. This request seeks responsive documents be delivered in electronic format and in the format in which they are regularly maintained and specifically includes all electronic metadata. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0886 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 26, 2026). In my March 26th determination, I ordered the City to 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/1185 Page 2 April 13, 2026 clarify whether it possesses additional records, and to explain whether the responsive records can be provided in the format requested. Additionally, I declined to opine on the applicability of Exemption (c) to the redacted information in light of pending litigation. The City responded on March 30, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1185, 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. 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 the requestor’s appeal petition, the requestor contends, “Malden’s [r]esponse below fails to provide the responsive records, in unredacted form, with the specifically requested metadata, [and] it also fails to provide the emails in the format and form requested and regularly maintained.” The City’s March 30th Response In its March 30, 2026 response, the City stated: [The requestor’s] assertion that “[t]he RAO did not search all email in the municipal email system. Instead, he . . . asked individuals to search their own inboxes and sent items and provide him with responsive documents. Multiple [r]esponsive records have been withheld in their entirety[,]” is inaccurate. Consistent with applicable public records law, the Records Access Officer conducted a reasonable and good faith search for responsive records. This process

Joanne Perperian SPR26/1185 Page 3 April 13, 2026 included verifying that the request was assigned to the appropriate department – as shown below to [an identified individual], Director of Information and Technology – who serves as the custodian of the City’s email system and is best positioned to identify records within that system. In addition, the Records Access Officer provided clear instructions to the IT Director regarding the scope of the request and the types of records to be identified, and followed up as necessary to ensure the City remained in compliance with applicable deadlines. All available records identified as responsive were reviewed and produced in accordance with applicable law. As is standard practice, emails are provided in their native form (.eml) or saved as PDFs when redactions are necessary. This has consistently been the City’s process. Additional Records Based on the City’s response and in conjunction with the information provided in the requestor’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the City possesses “metadata.” The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether additional records exist. Preferred Format of the Requestor A records access officer must, to the extent feasible, provide public records to a requestor in electronic format unless the record is not available in electronic form or the requestor does not have the ability to receive or access the records in electronic format and if feasible, in the requestor’s preferred format. In the absence of a preferred format, the records must be provided in a searchable machine-readable form. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5)(d). Additionally, the Public Records Access Regulations state that “the records access officer must provide electronic records in native form when possible.” 950 C.M.R. 32.07 (1)(d). Where the requestor has received an electronic copy of the responsive records, and the City has explained that “emails are provided in their native form (.eml) or saved as PDFs when redactions are necessary,” I find this portion of the appeal is resolved. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide the requestor 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/1185 Page 4 April 13, 2026 preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Open Commonwealth