Opinion ID: 852457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirements for a Petition to Enforce a Civil Investigative Demand

Text: The General Assembly has given the Attorney General authority to issue CIDs to investigate violations of specified laws. Ind.Code §§ 4-6-3-3 to -6 (2004). The listed statutes include the Home Improvement Contracts Act, because it is a statute enforced by the attorney general. Id. §§ 24-5-11-10, -14. The Attorney General may issue a CID if he has reasonable cause to believe that a person may be in possession, custody, or control of documentary material, or may have knowledge of a fact that is relevant to an investigation conducted to determine if a person is or has been engaged in a violation of one of the specified laws. Id. § 4-6-3-3. A CID may request production of documents for inspection, copying, or reproduction; answers under oath to written interrogatories; or appearance and testimony under oath before the Attorney General or his representative. Id. Section 4 of the statute requires that the CID be in writing and contain (1) A general description of the subject matter being investigated and a statement of the applicable provisions of law. (2) The date, time, and place at which the person is to appear, answer written interrogatories, or produce documentary material or other tangible items. The date shall not be less than ten (10) days from the date of service of the demand. (3) Where the production of documents or other tangible items is required, a description of those documents or items by class with sufficient clarity so that they might be reasonably identified. Id. § 4-6-3-4. Section 5 provides some limitations on a CID. A CID may not contain a requirement that would be unreasonable if contained in a subpoena, and may not require disclosure of privileged information. Id. § 4-6-3-5. If the person to whom a CID is directed objects or fails to respond, the Attorney General may file an application for an order to enforce the CID in the county in which the person resides or has a principal place of business. Id. § 4-6-3-6. The trial court is to hold a hearing, at which the Attorney General must demonstrate to the court that the demand is proper. Id. If the court finds that the demand is proper, it must order compliance with the CID, with any modifications which justice requires. Id. The court may order either party to pay the other's reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, [i]f the court finds that either party has acted in bad faith in seeking or resisting the demand. Id. The parties dispute whether filing an unsworn petition is a sufficient showing for enforcement of a CID, assuming the requirements of sections 4 and 5 of the statute are met. Nu-Sash points to the requirement in section 6 that the Attorney General demonstrate to the court that the demand is proper. Nu-Sash contends that this language puts some type of affirmative burden on the attorney general other than simply the filing of the Petition to Enforce. Nu-Sash explains that if the Attorney General needed only to file a petition, alleging that the CID met the statutory requirements, the trial court would serve merely as a rubber stamp. Nu-Sash points out that the statute does not permit the Attorney General to enforce a CID without judicial action, and argues that the need to invoke the judicial process is in place to protect citizens and businesses from unnecessary intrusion and the expense of responding to unjustified CIDs. We agree with Nu-Sash that the requirement of section 6 that the Attorney General demonstrate to the court that the demand is proper places a burden, albeit a small one, on the Attorney General. The Attorney General needs to establish only that there is an investigation and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person to whom the CID is directed has information relevant to that investigation. Failure to meet any of the other requirements for issuance of a CID (imprecise time and place of response, reasonable demand, etc.) are in the nature of objections that the respondent may raise. The initial propriety of the demand is satisfied by demonstrating that there is an investigation and the respondent is reasonably believed to have relevant information. Demonstration can be by a verified petition, affidavit, or testimony or other admissible evidence presented at a hearing. But naked allegations in a petition are insufficient. The CID statute contemplates a role for the trial court in ordering the enforcement of the CID, making necessary modifications to the CID, and determining whether the CID has been issued or resisted in bad faith. Id. A petition to enforce invokes the judicial power of the State. As such, it is subject to the Trial Rules and the Rules of Evidence. One does not demonstrate anything to a court by filing an unsworn allegation. See Ind. Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Logan, 728 N.E.2d 855, 858 (Ind.2000) (Unsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper Rule 56 evidence. (citing Kronmiller v. Wangberg, 665 N.E.2d 624, 627 (Ind.Ct.App.1996))). There is no allegation of abuse in this case, but history teaches that power can be and has been abused. Requiring the Attorney General to provide at least a verified petition to enforce affords all citizens some protection against fishing expeditions or retaliatory or abusive CIDs that are unrelated to legitimate investigations, and imposes a mild deterrent to arbitrary use of government authority. Indeed, where there is a legitimate purpose for a CID, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which it is burdensome to require that someone attest under penalties of perjury that there is an investigation under one of the statutes for which a CID is proper. Similarly, it will ordinarily be no problem to establish facts showing it is reasonable to believe the person to whom the CID is directed has relevant information. In this case the fact that Nu-Sash is or was in the home improvement business would do the trick. Despite the ease with which these requirements could presumably be met in this case, we nonetheless reverse the enforcement order to assure that future CIDs are issued and enforced with the thoughtfulness and care the statute requires.