Solomon, Melanie v. Milford, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20262108)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 10, 2026 SPR26/2108 Richard A. Villani Town Administrator Town of Milford 52 Main Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Mr. Villani: On June 3, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Milford (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting a waiver of statutory limits to fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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, I understand that the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Attorney Melanie Soloman, of the Law Office of Melanie Soloman, PLLC. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 19, 2026, Attorney Soloman requested the following: 1. Copy of the Fee Agreement/Contract with Foley & Hoag [hereinafter “FH”] 2. All detailed billings from FH 3. Copies of all checks remitted to FH for services rendered 4. All non-privileged communications by/between FH and the Town of Milford[.] 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; 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

Richard A. Villani SPR26/2108 Page 2 June 10, 2026 (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 The Town provides the following information in support of its petition: The request references a civil action pending in the Worcester Superior Court against the Town of Milford. The suit was filed on October 7, 2022, and the Town retained the office of Foley Hoag LLP to defend the action. . . . While the Court has a trial date of December 7, 2026, the parties have reached a tentative settlement which is in the process of being finalized. . . . This action has now spanned over 3 ½ years and includes a large and voluminous amount of discovery documents, as well as pleadings and other communications. Each document will need to be searched, reviewed and examined to determine the need and extent to redact attorney client privileged communications and work product pursuant to Suffolk Construction Co. Inc., v. Division of Capital Asset Management, 449 Mass. 444 (2007). The Town will need to further engage the services of Foley Hoag LLP to provide a response. Foley Hoag LLP estimates it will take 26 hours to review and redact privileged communications from the 48 invoices submitted in this case since May 2022. (See Memo from Foley Hoag LLP attached). In addition, both the Town Counsel and Town Administrator will need to similarly review and redact communications with Foley Hoag LLP, beyond the invoices submitted, to determine privileged information to be redacted. It is submitted that the Town believes it has established good cause to permit an extension of time, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in G.L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv).

Richard A. Villani SPR26/2108 Page 3 June 10, 2026 In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, and the capacity of the Town to produce the records without an extension, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (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. 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 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

Richard A. Villani SPR26/2108 Page 4 June 10, 2026 approved by the Supervisor of Records 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 of Records 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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Town states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour: The document request from the Soloman Law Office as submitted will require significant personnel time from attorneys, not general staff, at Foley Hoag LLP, as described in the memo. They estimate a cost of $16,350 in the firm’s personnel time to complete the needed review and redaction of the detailed invoices. The Town also estimates an additional 25 hours of time required for Town Counsel to review all communications between the Town and Foley Hoag LLP, beyond the invoices, to redact privileged communications and attorney work product. It is clear in order to comply with this request it is necessary to redact communications protected by the attorney client privilege due to the nature of the documents being requested by the Soloman Law Office. Foley Hoag LLP attorneys and Town Counsel, along with the Town Administrator are the only individuals qualified to locate, review and evaluate potentially hundreds of documents accumulated over the course of the 3 ½ years of the legal action. . . . The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. While the Town obviously cannot state for certain whether it was, what is significant is that the request came from a law office that handles matters involving municipalities, a commercial entity, and not from an individual. . . . Here, the Town submits that the fee is clearly necessary. As stated, the requested documents contain sensitive legal communications between counsel and its client, the Town. Specific legal training is required to review these communications and make a sophisticated and legally informed judgment as to just what may be subject to the attorney client privilege and what may not. Lay person clerical staff are not qualified to perform this function. As to the second factor . . . the fee is presented in the context of the legal profession, specifically that which specializes in high-end civil litigation. That is the work that Foley Hoag LLP does and, as evidenced in the Memo, the Town has already negotiated “discounted rates” with the firm to handle this high-end civil litigation.

Richard A. Villani SPR26/2108 Page 5 June 10, 2026 Based on the Town’s fee estimate, the Town requests to charge a rate of $72.00 per hour for Town Counsel, and as outlined in the referenced memo and the Town’s fee estimate, the Town requests to charge $750.00 per hour for partner time, and $550.00 per hour for associate time. Based on the information provided in the Town’s petition, I find the Town has partially met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In light of the factors in G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), I find the Town may assess a fee limited to $72.00 per hour for attorney review of those records being reviewed for attorney-client privilege. However, the Town may not assess a fee of $550.00 or $750.00 per hour. Conclusion As described above, I find that the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Additionally, I find the Town may assess a fee limited to $72.00 per hour for attorney review as described above. Further, this office encourages Attorney Soloman and the Town to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Town is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Town must provide a response to Attorney Soloman within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Attorney Soloman 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: Melanie Soloman, Esq.