Lexis Nexis, CRU v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20261240)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 9, 2026 SPR26/1240 Michael Manning Records Access Officer Law Department, Room 301 City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: On April 6, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the requests. 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, CRU LexisNexis. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In its petition, the City states, “[i]n public records requests dated between March 20, 2026, and April 3, 2026, LexisNexis sought 226 crash reports.” Subsequently, in an email to this office on April 7, 2026, the City clarified that it seeks a time extension and waiver of statutory limits to fees in regards to “205 requests [for crash reports] placed [by CRU LexisNexis] between Saturday, March 21, 2026, through Friday, April 3, 2026.” The City confirmed that of these 205 requests, CRU LexisNexis submitted ten requests to the City on Saturday, March 21, 2026 and an additional 26 requests on Sunday, March 22, 2026. The City further confirmed that the 36 requests submitted by CRU LexisNexis on March 21, 2026 and March 22, 2026, “were received by the City the following business day on Monday, March 23rd.” 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: 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 SPR26/1240 Page 2 April 9, 2026 (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). Current Petition In its petition, the City seeks “an extension of twenty business days” and provides the following in support of its request: The requests seek [205] separate crash reports which prior to production must be extracted from the Worcester Police Department’s records management system. The completion of these requests will involve the review and redaction of the responsive reports to protect exempt information including the redaction of Massachusetts driver’s license numbers as required by M.G. L. c. 93H. Since March 20, 2026, the City has received 663 public records requests. It is likely that a portion of these additional requests may also require review and redaction by the Worcester Police Department’s Records Bureau. Further as noted in the petition to assess fees, the City asserts that these requests have been placed for a commercial purpose. Consequently, there is little to no public interest served by expeditious disclosure of these records to LexisNexis. . . . In light of 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)(ii)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 20 business days.

Michael Manning SPR26/1240 Page 3 April 9, 2026 Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4).

Michael Manning SPR26/1240 Page 4 April 9, 2026 Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the City seeks permission “to assess fees for segregation and redaction at a rate of $30.00” per hour. In support of its request, the City provides links to CRU LexisNexis’ website and states the following: [T]he City asserts that these requests have been placed for a commercial purpose. According to Lexis Nexis’s website . . . , Lexis Nexis “provides customers with innovative technologies, information-based analytics, decisioning tools and data management services that help them solve problems, make better decisions, stay compliant, reduce risk and improve operations.” One service that Lexis Nexis appears to provide its customers with is the ability to search for and buy automobile crash reports. According to the [relevant] portion of Lexis Nexis’s website . . . , it appears that Lexis Nexis is reselling the crash reports is [sic] obtained via public records requests. . . . The term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Based on the City’s petition, it is my understanding that the requests made by CRU LexisNexis meet the statutory definition of “commercial purpose” within the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § l0(d)(ix); see also SPR20/2599 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2021). Conclusion As described above, I find that the City has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days. Additionally, based on the City’s petition and my finding that the requests are for a commercial purpose, I approve the City’s petition to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. Please be advised, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, CRU LexisNexis 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).

Michael Manning SPR26/1240 Page 5 April 9, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: CRU LexisNexis