The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Department of State Police

JOHN E. MAWN JR.
MAURA T. HEALEY
GOVERNOR Office of the Chief Legal Counsel COLONEL/SUPERINTENDENT

KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
470 Worcester Road JOHN D. PINKHAM
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT

TERRENCE M. REIDY
Framingham, Massachusetts 01702
SECRETARY

DATE: October 1, 2024

RE: Your September 18, 2024 Public Records Request

Dear Ms. Kavanaugh,

The Department of State Police (“Department”) is in receipt of your September 18, 2024 public records
request. Upon initial review, it appears that a majority of the responsive records may be exempt in
their entirety from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26 (c). However, this cannot be confirmed
without a full review of the responsive documents. Please be advised the Department hereby assesses
a reasonable fee for the production of records that are responsive to your September 18, 2024 public
records request in accordance with M.G.L c. 66, § 10(d)(ii)(C) and 950 CMR 32.07(2)(d). M.G.L. c.
6, § 10(d)(ii)(C) permits an agency to assess a fee for time spent segregating or redacting records, after
the first four hours performed (see M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii)(B)) where such segregating and redacting
is “required by law.” See also 950 CMR 32.07(2)(d). “Segregation time” is defined as “the time used
to review records to determine what portions are subject to redaction or withholding under M.G.L. c.
4, § 7, clause Twenty-sixth or other legally applicable privileges.” 950 CMR 32.02. To “[r]edact”
means “to delete, or otherwise expurgate that part of a public record that is exempt from disclosure
under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, clause Twenty-sixth or other legally applicable privileges from non-exempt
material.” Id.

The Department’s fee assessment for your request was calculated as follows:

You have requested the following records: “[a]ny and all documentation from recruit members of the
RTT 88, 89, 90 who left the training class prior to graduation.” You specified in your request that the
documentation should include but not be limited to “[a]ny internal communications (emails, memos)
related to the departure”, “[o]fficial reports, evaluations, or investigations that explain the
circumstances of the departure” and “[e]xit interviews”.

As you know, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals in the recent case of Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L.
Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 814 (2024) stated that requests made pursuant to G.L. c. 66, sec. 10
must provide the agency with a sufficient description of the records sought so as “[to enable] a
professional employee of the agency who was familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the
record with a reasonable amount of effort” Id. at 815–16. The Court cautioned that “[t]he public
records law does not require public agencies simply to provide the requested records no matter the
burden imposed, nor does it require public agencies to shunt aside their principal public functions to
do so. Rather, a rule of reason governs both the obligation of public agencies to respond and to provide
records, and also the conduct of requestors of public documents. See Globe Newspaper Co. v.
Commissioner of Educ., 439 Mass. 124, 129-130 (2003) (Globe Newspaper Co.)… [a]gencies must
read FOIA requests as drafted, and '[b]road, sweeping requests lacking specificity are not sufficient'"
(citations omitted). Center for Immigration Studies v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.,
628 F. Supp. 3d 266, 270 (D.D.C. 2022).” “The reasonable description requirement is a necessary
bulwark of the public records law, as the law ‘was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-
time investigators on behalf of [requestors].’" Friedman, quoting Assassination Archives & Research
Ctr., Inc. v. Central Intelligence Agency, 720 F. Supp. 217, 219 (D.D.C. 1989).

The Department has conducted a search of its records based on your request. The Department has,
through the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (EOTSS), conducted preliminary
searches of Department emails based on your request for “[a]ny internal communications (emails,
memos) related to the departure”. This search resulted in approximately 135,885 items. Furthermore,
in researching parts 2 and 3 of your request, the Department located 267 files that may be responsive
to your request. As a state agency with the responsibility for maintaining extensive confidential
information, the Department has an obligation to ensure proper procedures are maintained to prevent
the dissemination of information that is protected from disclosure by law. Fulfilling such an obligation
requires a careful review and segregation of records intended for disclosure. Based on the nature of
the requested records, the Department reasonably believes that they may contain information, the
redaction of which is required by law under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(a). Segregation time is required
for the Department to review the potentially responsive records because these documents may contain
information that is protected from public disclosure by M.G.L. c. 6, § 172, the Criminal Offender
Record Information (“CORI”) statute. Additionally, the records are reasonably likely to contain
information relating to an identifiable person, which is also exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L.
c. 4, § 7 cl. 26 (a), because that information is personal information that is prohibited from being
disclosed by G.L. c. 66A, §§ 1 & 2. M.G.L. c. 66A, § 1 defines “personal information” as “any
information concerning an individual which, because of name, identifying number, mark or description
can be readily associated with a particular individual.”

Given that, in total, there are approximately 135,885 email items and approximately 267 case files that
the Department must review to determine if they are responsive to your request and then make
redactions as required by law, this will impose an onerous burden on the Department, which will have
to devote limited resources to review and redact these records. Given the volume of information
requiring review, the Department’s good faith estimate of cost amounts to $176,431. This amount is
based upon the following: approximately 135,885 emails will have to be reviewed and redacted. The
Department estimates, conservatively and in good faith that it will expend an average of 3 minutes to
review and redact each email. See SPR20/1242 (State Police petition applying three (3) minute per
email review and $25.00 hourly rate approved); SPR20/0945 (State Police petition applying three (3)
minute per email review and $25.00 hourly rate approved); SPR20/0790 (State Police petition applying
three (3) minute per email review and $25.00 hourly rate approved for request seeking records
pertaining to email communications of two named accounts from January 2015 to the present.);
SPR20/0200 (State Police petition applying three (3) minute per email review and $25.00 hourly rate
approved); Accordingly, the good faith estimate for reviewing the 135,885 emails is calculated at (3
min. x 135,885 = 407,665 minutes; 407,665 minutes/60 minutes = approximately 6,794.25 hours) at a
rate of $25/hour resulting in a cost of $169,856. As relates to the 267 case files that may be responsive
to parts 2 and 3 of your request, the Department estimates, conservatively and in good faith that it will
expend an average of 1 hour to review and redact each file. Accordingly, the good faith estimate for
reviewing the 267 files is calculated at (1 hour x 267 files = 267 hours) at a rate of $25/hour resulting
in a cost of $6,675. The Department would provide 4 gratis hours (-4 gratis hours at a rate of
$25/hours). As such, the resulting fee assessed is $176,431.
This estimate represents an actual and good faith representation. The cost is necessary, reasonable, and
not designed to limit, deter, or prevent access to requested public records. The Department expressly
reserves the right to supplement this estimate once it is able to determine the number of responsive
records, which require redactions. Again, please note that the majority of the responsive records may
be exempt in their entirety from disclosure.

If you wish to proceed with this request, please contact me to arrange for your payment. Please be
aware that given the amount of information being requested, the Department cannot project a timetable
as to when the Department can complete this research.

The Department is happy to set up a call with you to discuss your request and the Department’s fee
estimate. Please advise if you would like to arrange a time to speak about your request.

If you wish to challenge any aspect of this response, you may appeal to the Supervisor of Public
Records as set forth in 950 C.M.R. 32.08, a copy of which is available at
http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/law-lib/laws-by-source/cmr/. You may also file a civil
action in accordance with M.G.L. c. 66, § 10A.

Sincerely,

/s/ Allison Hynes

Allison Hynes
Staff Legal Counsel
Office of Chief Legal Counsel
Massachusetts State Police
470 Worcester Road
Framingham, MA 01702