All the bills from Greenberg Traurig pertaining or purporting to pertain to the inquiry - what Linda Ricci called an "investigation" on the record - by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Dept. of Justice, for which GT applied for payment and which was on the Agenda for the 11/15/22 City Council meeting. Let's not have any of that nonsense of redaction. It is NOT covered by attorney/client privilege as so claimed and even if it were, Everett is the client and can waive privilege. It is also not covered by any Exemption for personal information, names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. because it's just a bill and wouldn't contain anything like that. Any entry that clearly gives the content of a communication (not that there WAS a communication but actually what the communication was about), which shouldn't be listed on a bill anyway, could be redacted. Whatever else anyone at GT looked at such as emails, phone records, procurement documents, IT records is not exempt from public records law. Further, privilege cannot be claimed without evidence of an attorney/client relationship, which was not given at the time privilege was claimed. Also, Suffolk Const. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 44 (2007) does not apply because the matter that is allegedly being handled by Greenberg Traurig - although no proof of their having been hired by the city to handle the matter - is not a lawsuit, as in Suffolk, but is an "investigation" or an "inquiry."
See attached. Please be advised that with respect to the redacted portions of the responsive documents are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (a). MGL c. 4 s. 7(26)(a) provides the city a basis for withholding records that are "specifically or be necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute." The details in the invoices are confidential communications under the attorney-client privilege. Further, withholding correspondence which contain confidential communications between the city Solicitor's Office and its outside attorneys are communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. MGL c. 4 s. 7 (26); see Suffolk Construction Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 449-450 (2007) (concluding that the enactment of the Public records Law did not destroy the protection provided by the attorney-client privilege to communication between governmental entities and their lawyers) see also DaRosa v. New Bedford, 471 Mass. 446, 453 (2015)(reaffirming Suffolk Construction principle that "communications within the attorney-client privilege are impliedly exempt from the definition of the 'public records' and therefore are protected from public disclosure under the act")
Request Date
2023-01-11
Agency Tracking
2023-0036
Acquisition Notes
This record was automatically imported from https://www.townforms.com/FOIADirect-EverettMACitizens/