Appeals Court Dismisses Malden Suits Against Friedman
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the city's lawsuits against a Malden resident who requested public records rested solely on his protected petitioning activity.
Updated on Nov. 4, 2026 in Civic Engagement
Live Poll
Should local governments be allowed to sue residents who request public records?
The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed orders denying special motions to dismiss filed by Malden resident Bruce Friedman and remanded two of the city's three lawsuits for dismissal. The court found the city's complaints were based solely on Friedman's protected petitioning activity, meaning his public records requests.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies that a public agency cannot use litigation to challenge a records requester's protected petitioning, which could affect how Massachusetts cities respond to public records disputes. The decision limits a city's ability to sue a private citizen over records requests unless the Legislature's statutory enforcement mechanism is triggered.
The Appeals Court reversed orders denying Friedman's special motions to dismiss in two of the city's three suits and remanded them for dismissal, while dismissing the appeal in the first case as not properly before it. The city filed its suits in Superior Court against the state supervisor of public records, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and Friedman.
The players
Bruce Friedman
Friedman is a private citizen of Malden who operates the website OpenCommonwealth.org and has made public records requests to the city.
Malden
Malden is a city in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, which filed the lawsuits challenging supervisor orders on records disputes.
The details
The city of Malden challenged supervisor orders through judicial review, certiorari, and declaratory judgment, but the court held that the orders alone did not cause the city a cognizable injury when it filed. The Legislature provided a remedy: under G.L.c. 66, §10A, a public agency refusing to comply with a supervisor order bears the burden of proof if the Attorney General or a records requestor brings an enforcement action.
Timeline
Nov. 3, 2026: Massachusetts Appeals Court issues decision in docket 25-P-235.
Civic Engagement Context
The decision applies the enforcement structure of G.L.c. 66, §10A, under which a public agency must refuse a supervisor order and wait for an Attorney General or requester enforcement action to test it. The ruling reinforces that Massachusetts treats public records petitioning as protected activity shielded from retaliatory municipal litigation.
Residents who file public records requests in Massachusetts are shielded from municipal suits based solely on that petitioning, reducing the risk of retaliatory litigation. Malden residents and officials should expect records disputes to be resolved through the statutory enforcement process rather than through city lawsuits.
The takeaway
Public records requests are protected petitioning activity in Massachusetts, and a city seeking to challenge a records decision must wait for the statutory enforcement process rather than suing the requester. Citizens who file requests can rely on that protection when a local government pushes back.
Further reading
Explore more on Civic Engagement to see how public records rights shape local government accountability.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Should local governments be allowed to sue residents who request public records?
