Case Details


Attorney General Ability To Share Investigative Materials With Other States.

Filing State



Connecticut Superior Court




Brown & Brown v. Blumenthal, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1057 (Ct. Super 2007), app. Dismissed, Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 2008 Conn. LEXIS 334 (Conn., Sept. 9, 2008)


Attorney General could share investigative materials with other state Attorney General offices in connection with multistate investigation.

Case Description

The Attorney General of Connecticut issued interrogatories and a subpoena duces tecum to a company in connection with an investigation of certain insurance industry practices. The relevant statue provides that the documents “shall not be available to the public.” The company filed a declaratory judgment action arguing hat pursuant to this statute, the Attorney General could not disclose the documents to anyone outside the Attorney General’s office unless they were either 1) entered into evidence in court after notice and opportunity for the defendant to object; or 2) provided to an official of another state or the federal government who will provide the same level of confidentiality that the statute provides. The court found that the use of the term “the public” rather than “any person” in the statute was intended to preclude the application of public information laws, not to bar all disclosure of the documents. The court held that the plaintiff’s “interpretation would undermine the policy of the statute, which is to give the Attorney General a practical tool to further its investigation and prosecution of antitrust cases.”