New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General

10/1/2008

 
Preventing Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Other Confidential Business Information to Competitors

This case arises under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35–42, which authorizes the Connecticut Attorney General to subpoena documents from “any person” (including, as in this case, non-party witnesses) when the AG has “reason to believe” that an antitrust violation has occurred, but which also provides that the subpoenaed documents “shall not be available to the public.”  Attorney General Blumenthal asserts that, despite this language, the statute does not limit his discretion to disclose a business’s confidential information and documents obtained by subpoena as part of an antitrust investigation to third parties (including competitors) in the course of conducting investigative depositions and witness interviews.  

Brown & Brown, an insurance intermediary that provides insurance and reinsurance products and services, filed this action seeking injunctive, declaratory and equitable relief restricting disclosure to third parties of documents and information sought by the Attorney General in connection with an ongoing antitrust investigation of the insurance industry.  The trial court denied Brown & Brown’s motion for summary judgment, and Brown & Brown appealed.  

NELF filed an amicus brief in the appeal, as it had in the trial court, arguing in support of Brown & Brown that the statute bars disclosure of subpoenaed documents to anyone outside the Attorney General’s office. NELF argued that, since there is statutory language immediately preceding the disputed provision that clearly limits custody of subpoenaed documents to the Attorney General’s office, the statute equates custody with access and both are restricted to the Attorney General’s office.  NELF further argued that the statute strikes a reasonable balance by allowing the Attorney General broad access to confidential information even before a suit has been commenced, but precluding the Attorney General from sharing that information with others.  Since the Attorney General needs to make at this stage only a preliminary determination whether to commence suit, after which typical rules regarding discovery (including protective orders) would apply, NELF argued that upholding this statutory balance should not hinder the Attorney General’s investigation or filing of claims.  

Unfortunately, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in a September 2008 decision, concluded (contrary to the positions taken by both parties when the Court raised the issue for the first time sua sponte at oral argument) that the trial court’s denial of Brown & Brown’s motion for summary judgment was not an appealable final judgment and dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits. The trial court subsequently received cross-motions for summary judgment from the parties repeating the arguments previously made and issued a decision reiterating its prior position.  The parties again appealed and NELF re-filed its amicus brief.

Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001