The bill adds a new section to chapter 43.10 RCW creating a civil investigative demand (CID) authority for the Washington attorney general. Under the new section the attorney general may issue written CIDs, before instituting a civil proceeding, requiring production of documents, answers to written interrogatories, and oral testimony when investigating alleged violations of the U.S. or Washington Constitutions and a listed set of statutes and chapters. The new law expressly excludes use of CIDs for criminal investigations or prosecutions. The section sets procedural requirements for CIDs (what they must state, methods of service, return dates, and locations and times for production), requires that interrogatories and oral testimony follow the civil rules for superior court, and prescribes deposition procedures (including who may attend and the county for taking testimony). It makes materials produced under a CID confidential, permits the attorney general to share materials with law enforcement under written confidentiality agreements (and bars use of those shared materials as evidence in criminal prosecutions), allows the attorney general to use produced materials in enforcement actions subject to court protection for trade secrets, and creates a misdemeanor prohibition on disclosing the existence or content of a court-approved nondisclosure CID with specified exceptions for certain financial institutions. The section provides judicial review and enforcement mechanisms: petitions to extend, modify, or set aside a CID may be filed in Superior Court (Thurston County or the county where the parties reside) within timing limits tied to the CID return date or within 30 days of service, and trial courts have authority to enforce CIDs and impose civil discovery sanctions. The new section does not displace other CID authorities the attorney general may have. Important details are missing from the extracted text: the new section’s RCW number is not stated, specific misdemeanor penalties (fines or jail terms) are not given, and certain terms and procedural specifics (for example, definitions of “authorized employee,” the exact process for prior court approval of nondisclosure, and the full texts of the listed statutes) are not provided.

If enacted, the attorney general would get a new, pre‑litigation tool to compel businesses and people to hand over documents, answer written questions, or give sworn testimony about possible violations of certain state and federal constitutional provisions and a list of state laws. Targets will have to produce materials during normal business hours and follow the same timing and procedure rules used in superior court discovery; they can be deposed locally and must respond or quickly ask a court to modify or quash the demand. Materials produced are treated as confidential, may only be shared with certain law enforcement officials under written confidentiality promises, and if a court has ordered secrecy it can be a misdemeanor for most parties to reveal the CID’s existence or contents (financial institutions are exempt from that disclosure prohibition). The Office of the Attorney General gains a stronger investigatory role and will likely need staff and legal resources to issue, review, and enforce these demands and to handle related court petitions and confidentiality arrangements. Businesses and individuals who receive a demand face added compliance costs, potential discovery sanctions if they don’t comply, and risks to confidentiality that they must manage through privilege claims or court motions; trade secrets require court approval before use in court. Important details remain unclear from the text provided, including the exact misdemeanor penalties, precise definitions of authorized employees and professional‑conduct limits, and how prior court approval to bar disclosure would be obtained.