PA 13-85—SB 879

General Law Committee

Judiciary Committee


SUMMARY: This act allows the attorney general to disclose confidential material to a person testifying in an antitrust investigation when the attorney general or his designee reasonably:

1. determines its use is necessary to bring out evidence of a suspected antitrust violation and

2. believes the person providing the testimony (a) is an author or recipient of the confidential material or (b) has read it or is aware of its substance.

By law, the Attorney General's Office can subpoena documents, subpoena people to testify and transcribe their testimony, and issue written interrogatories in an antitrust investigation. Existing law allows the attorney general to share these documents with federal and other states' officials, but prior law prohibited disclosing them to the public. Under the act, “confidential material” refers to (1) original or copies of documents, responses to interrogatories, or written transcripts of oral testimony or (2) other information produced after a demand or voluntarily.

The act prohibits the person providing testimony from keeping any of the confidential material.

The act's authorized use of confidential material does not apply to investigations of proposed mergers or acquisitions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2013


Related Case

In 2010, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the law barred disclosing material and information gathered in an antitrust investigation to anyone outside the attorney general's office, except federal and other states' officials. The court stated that the material cannot be disclosed in connection with taking oral testimony as part of an antitrust investigation.

Regarding disclosure to federal or other states' officials, the court stated that the attorney general must obtain an agreement that the officials will abide by the same confidentiality restrictions as the attorney general.

The court also stated that when materials are filed or entered into evidence in a court proceeding, the statutory confidentiality provisions must be balanced against the presumption that documents submitted in court related to an adjudication are publicly available. The court stated that court rules allow the party who provided the documents to seek to seal them or limit their disclosure, and the trial court must then determine whether (1) they involve trade secrets or sensitive information and (2) the need for confidentiality outweighs the public's interest in viewing them (Brown and Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 297 Conn. 710 (2010)).

OLR Tracking: DC: KLM: JKL: ts