In Re Civil Investigative Demand No. 2016-CPD-50 (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-149-16)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 2016-2098 BLS 1 IN RE CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND NO. 2016-CPD-50, ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ORDER ON MOTION OF GLOCK, INC. TO SET ASIDE OR MODIFY THE CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND OR ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER Glock, Inc., a manufacturer of pistols, commenced this action to set aside a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) issued by the Attorney General to Glock on May 26, 2016. In the alternative to a complete quashing of the CID, Glock requests that a protective order issue limiting the information that must be produced pursuant to the CID. As described below, Glock’s motion to set aside the CID is denied. Action on the motion for a protective order is deferred, as the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the scope of discovery guided by the general principles governing CID discovery, discussed herein. BACKGROUND The CID was issued to Glock pursuant to G.L. c. 93A, § 6. The CID recites that it is issued as “part of a pending investigation by the Office of the Attorney General into compliance with G.L. c. 93A, as well as related Massachusetts laws, regulations and common law requirements that impact gun safety and product warranties.” The CID requires production of documents from Glock pursuant to G.L. c. 93A, § 6 (1). The requests for documents are detailed 1 in twelve separate paragraphs. The general nature of the documents requested include customer complaints about safety, the company’s responses, product recalls, warranties, testing, specifications, authorized dealers and legal actions and settlements. There is no geographic limitation to the scope of documents that must be produced. The relevant time period for documents that must be produced is four years prior to the date of the CID. Upon receipt of the CID, Glock, through counsel, began communications with the Office of the Attorney General. According to Glock’s complaint (styled as a “petition”), the Attorney General agreed to an extension of the twenty-one day period allowed by statute for a recipient of a CID to move or object to the CID, to July 1, 2016. On July 1, 2016, having failed to reach an agreement with the Attorney General regarding the validity and scope of the CID, Glock filed its complaint along with an emergency motion to set aside or modify the CID. The emergency motion was denied, without prejudice to re-filing pursuant to Rule 9A of the Superior Court. On August 11, 2016, Glock served its renewed motion to set aside or modify the CID on the Attorney General. On September 15, 2016, the parties’ Rule 9A package was filed in this action. Oral argument was heard on October 19, 2016.1 […]