Webb, David v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20261253)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 9, 2026 SPR26/1253 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Manning: On April 8, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester 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). On March 9, 2026, March 14, 2026, March 17, 2026, and March 18, 2026, Mr. Webb requested the following: March 9th Request [1] The accident packet created in accordance with the WPD policy and procedure, which should be with the chiefs office[;] [2] A copy of all public record requests filed by [an identified individual] and the responses between June 21st (date of the collision) and July 28th 2025… March 14th Request [A]ll emails in the correspondence between the Worcester law department and [an identified individual]. March 17th Request [A]ny police report and the BWC from the two officers that responded to a call on chestnut street between 11am and noon this morning (March 17th, 2026). 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 SPR26/1253 Page 2 April 9, 2026 March 18th Request [T]he bodyworn Camera footage from [an identified individual] and any police report from [an identified incident]. 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 requests “an extension of twenty-five business days.” In support of its request the City provides the following information: Since March 16, 2026, the City has received over 950 additional public records requests. It is likely that a substantial portion of these additional requests may also require review and redaction by the City’s Law Department. Furthermore, only a small subset of City employees has the requisite knowledge and technical expertise

Michael Manning SPR26/1253 Page 3 April 9, 2026 to redact the requested body-worn camera footage. The City expects review and make required redactions pursuant to 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 and the identities of voluntary witnesses or complaints. However additional exempt information may be discovered as the City prepares the responsive records for production. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, 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)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 25 business days. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the City has established good cause for a time extension of 25 business days as described above. 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