Lewin, Joel v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20261413)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 22, 2026 SPR26/1413 Christopher Smith, Esq. Senior Lead Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Smith: On April 14, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Department/MassDOT) 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 MassDOT furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Joel Lewin. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 31, 2026, Mr. Lewin requested the following: All phone records (as defined above) comprising or reflecting correspondence between [identified corporation] and MassDOT (each as defined above) during the Relevant Time Period, including without limitation, correspondence relating to the RFP and/or the Procurement, and involving any one or more of [identified individuals]. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 of Records (Supervisor) under a petition under 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 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

Christopher Smith, Esq. SPR26/1413 Page 2 April 22, 2026 an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination 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 agency 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; 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 In its petition, MassDOT requests permission “to waive statutory limits to fees…” In support of its petition, MassDOT provides the following information: The Massachusetts Public Records Law allows redaction under Exemption (c) for records likely to contain “personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” This may include personal information, photographs of family members, or discussion of personal matters comingled with work matters, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Redaction pursuant to Exemption (n) protects records that “relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness… or

Christopher Smith, Esq. SPR26/1413 Page 3 April 22, 2026 any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation 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 (b) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety.” Specifically, responsive records in this matter may contain meeting dial-in numbers or access codes which could compromise cybersecurity through so- called “zoom bombs.” Additionally, records may contain unlisted numbers of key government officials, the release of which could pose a safety risk to those individuals. In light of MassDOT’s petition, I find MassDOT 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, MassDOT may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, MassDOT may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable MassDOT to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Lewin 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: Joel Lewin