|
David Project, Inc. v.
Boston Redevelopment Authority, 2007 WL 1302605
(Mass. Super.) (April 9, 2007) (van Gestel, J.). |
|
This case involves a strikingly
contentious and emotionally-charged dispute over a
request for public records under G.L. c. 66, § 10. The
David Project sought records relating to a conveyance of
land from the Boston Redevelopment Authority to the
Islamic Society of Boston. The David Project asserted
that the BRA’s response was deficient under the statute.
The BRA argued that the David Project’s request was
defective in several respects. Both parties moved for
summary judgment.
After urging all parties to “calm the
rhetoric,” the court first held that the Public Records
Law applies to the BRA and that the BRA bears the burden
of justifying its refusal to produce the requested
records. Id. at *4. The court then rejected the
BRA’s claims that the David Project lacked standing to
bring suit (alleged on the basis that the underlying
records request was not filed under the Project’s name),
and that the request improperly sought records from the
City of Boston rather than the BRA itself. On this
latter claim, the court noted that “Government entities
are supposed to be cooperative with persons requesting
public records and assist, not frustrate on
technicalities, the requester when it is possible to do
so.” Id. at *5. |
|
The court further rejected the claim that
the requested records were exempted from production
under the litigation and harassment provisions of the
statute. Id. at *8.
But the court also rejected the David
Project’s claims for summary judgment, noting that the
applicable regulations require that “any person seeking
access to a public record or any portion thereof shall
provide a reasonable description of the requested record
to the custodian so that he or she can identify and
locate it promptly.” Id. at *7. The requests at
issue here were exceedingly broad – the court likened
them to requests for discovery under Rule 34, which tend
to include “everything known to man.” Id. at *6.
Such requests did not constitute reasonable
identification of the documents sought. The court
therefore urged (but did not order) the David Project to
redraft a more focused and reasonable request to which
the BRA could properly respond. The court also urged
(but again did not order) the BRA to turn over any
documents already located upon receipt of payment for
copying charges, subject to further order from the court
in the event of non-performance.
 |
