← Back to Search
Breault, Angel v. Pittsfield, City of (SPR 20262364)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 06-23-2026
ClosedTime Petition
SPR 20262364 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Breault, Angel concerning records held by Pittsfield, City of, opened 06-23-2026. Type: Time Petition. Status: Closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20262364
- Case Type
- Time Petition
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Breault, Angel
- Custodian
- Pittsfield, City of
- Date Opened
- 06-23-2026
- Date Closed
- 06-26-2026
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 26, 2026 SPR26/2364 Hannah M. Nawa Legal Assistant City of Pittsfield 70 Allen Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 Dear Ms. Nawa: On June 23, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Pittsfield (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Angel Breault. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On June 15, 2026, Ms. Breault requested “[a]ny and all records, including any and all incident reports, police reports, log notes, and including any other reports or notes, however they may be titled, related to, produced or generated during the period of September 1st, 2024, through present; involving [six identified individuals].” Petitions 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. 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 Hannah M. Nawa SPR26/2364 Page 2 June 26, 2026 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its petition, the City requests an extension until July 30, 2026 and provides the following information in support of its request: The City began compiling responsive records for the requester. The City located approximately 3,283 documents regarding the above-named individuals. After a brief review of items, the City has determined that many of the records may need to be withheld and/or redacted, as they may be exempt under (G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)); (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f)); (G.L. c. 4 § 7 (26)(d); and/or the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. I find that in light of the need to segregate and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, and the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The City is granted an extension of 27 business days. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 27 business days as described above. Please note, Ms. Breault 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), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Angel Breault