This bill creates a new section in chapter 43.10 RCW that authorizes the Washington State attorney general to issue written civil investigative demands (CIDs) for documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, and oral testimony when facts and circumstances would reasonably lead to possible violations of specified provisions of the United States or Washington State constitutions and certain listed statutes and chapters (including RCW 10.93.160; RCW 43.10.315; and chapters 39.12, 49.46, 49.48, 49.52, 49.60, and 70.48). The new law sets substantive and procedural criteria for CIDs (investigation must be within the attorney general’s authority, demands must be sufficiently definite and reasonably relevant), prescribes required contents of each CID, specifies methods and timing for service and production, and makes written interrogatories and oral testimony subject to the civil rules for superior court (including deposition protections and locations). The section establishes confidentiality rules and limited penalties: materials produced are confidential to authorized attorney general employees unless consent or court order is given; producers may inspect or copy under terms set by the attorney general; the attorney general may share copies with other law-enforcement officials only if the receiving official agrees in writing to restrict further disclosure; and a prior court-approved nondisclosure of a CID’s existence or content makes disclosure a misdemeanor for persons or entities other than certain specified financial institutions. The section also prohibits providing copies of produced materials to state, local, or federal law enforcement agencies or any person for the purpose of any criminal law enforcement investigation, while allowing the attorney general to use produced materials in enforcement actions with court notice and special handling for trade secrets. Procedurally, the bill authorizes judicial review and enforcement: petitions to extend, modify, or set aside a CID may be filed under specified timing rules, trial courts of general jurisdiction in any county have jurisdiction to hear such petitions and may impose discovery sanctions, and the attorney general may seek enforcement in the county where a person resides, is found, or transacts business. The attorney general must report to the appropriate legislative committees within four years of the section’s effective date with yearly counts of CIDs issued, CIDs set aside by courts, CIDs resulting in informal presuit resolutions, and CIDs resulting in civil enforcement actions. The section does not supersede the attorney general’s CID authority under other statutes. Important details are missing from the provided text, including the effective date, any additional penalty provisions beyond the misdemeanor noted, the remainder of the enforcement procedure (the text ends mid-sentence), and any further definitions such as “authorized employee.”

If enacted, the attorney general’s office would gain a clear, formal power to compel documents, written answers, and sworn testimony in presuit investigations into possible violations of specified state and federal constitutional provisions and several named state laws. That will likely increase the number of investigative demands businesses and individuals receive, require recipients to produce materials during normal business hours or appear for depositions, and create more routine legal costs for responding or challenging demands; courts can be asked to modify or quash demands and may impose discovery sanctions. The attorney general must get internal approval from an assistant attorney general before issuing a demand, must generally keep produced materials confidential, and faces a reporting requirement to the legislature within four years showing counts of demands issued, set aside, resolved informally, or enforced in court. The Office of the Attorney General will carry most of the new burden and responsibility and may need more staff or procedures to manage issuance, review, confidentiality, and the mandated report, while the criminal justice division and federal agencies are excluded from being targeted. People and businesses served will face direct costs and risk of compelled disclosure, and there is a misdemeanor penalty for unlawfully revealing the existence or content of a court-sealed demand (with certain financial institutions excepted). The text leaves key details unclear, including the section’s effective date, any penalties beyond that misdemeanor, and exactly how the allowance to share materials with other enforcement officials squarely fits with the prohibition on providing copies for criminal investigations.