Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Butterworth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Butterworth

685 So. 2d 1327, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2459, 1996 WL 113056

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 1996

DocketNo. 95-01495

StatusPublished

This text of 685 So. 2d 1327 (Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Butterworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Butterworth, 685 So. 2d 1327, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2459, 1996 WL 113056 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying Griffin Industries’ petition to set aside a civil investigative demand, which the Attorney General issued pursuant to section 542.28, Florida Statutes (1993). The civil investigative demand requires this privately held corporation to produce the minutes from its board of directors meetings from January 1984 to the present. This production will not become a public record. See § 542.28(9), Fla.Stat. (1993). The Attorney General has agreed to an order prohibiting disclosure of this investigative evidence to anyone without further order from the trial court. We conclude that the two standards limiting disclosure in section 542.28(3) do not protect these minutes from disclosure to the Attorney General. See generally Associated Container Transp. (Australia) Ltd. v. United States, 705 F.2d 53, 58 (2d Cir.1983) (discussing civil investigative demands issued pursuant to Antitrust Civil Process Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311-1314 (1980)).

We recognize that the scope of disclosure available under each of the two differing standards in section 542.28(3) is not well explained in the statute and that case law has not adequately distinguished one standard from the other. Nevertheless, the limited and confidential production sought by the Attorney General does not present a controversy in this case requiring a full discussion of the two standards.

Affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying Griffin Industries’ petition to set aside a civil investigative demand, which the Attorney General issued pursuant to section 542.28, Florida Statutes (1993). The civil investigative demand requires this privately held corporation to produce the minutes from its board of directors meetings from January 1984 to the present. This production will not become a public record. See § 542.28(9), Fla.Stat. (1993). The Attorney General has agreed to an order prohibiting disclosure of this investigative evidence to anyone without further order from the trial court. We conclude that the two standards limiting disclosure in section 542.28(3) do not protect these minutes from disclosure to the Attorney General. See generally Associated Container Transp. (Australia) Ltd. v. United States, 705 F.2d 53, 58 (2d Cir.1983) (discussing civil investigative demands issued pursuant to Antitrust Civil Process Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311-1314 (1980)).

We recognize that the scope of disclosure available under each of the two differing standards in section 542.28(3) is not well explained in the statute and that case law has not adequately distinguished one standard from the other. Nevertheless, the limited and confidential production sought by the Attorney General does not present a controversy in this case requiring a full discussion of the two standards.

Affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 So. 2d 1327, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2459, 1996 WL 113056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-industries-inc-v-butterworth-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack