Many statutes empower agencies and state attorneys general to issue compulsory demands before any suit — for documents, written responses and oral testimony.

Breadth. Demands are frequently expansive and issued on a low threshold of suspicion. The recipient’s leverage lies in negotiation rather than in formal objection, since courts are deferential on enforcement.

Negotiating scope. Custodians, date ranges, search terms, and phased production. Offering a structured, prompt partial production usually achieves more narrowing than a global objection.

Objections. Relevance, undue burden, privilege, and constitutional limits. Some statutes require objections within a short period or they are waived.

Confidentiality. Statutes vary on whether the demand and the materials are public. Several state public records laws expose them, and a confidentiality agreement or statutory designation should be sought before producing sensitive material.

Multistate inquiries. Coordinated demands from several attorneys general raise the question of a common briefing and negotiation with an executive committee of states, which is usually more efficient than parallel individual responses.

Parallel exposure. Materials produced may be shared with other agencies and with federal criminal authorities. Nothing should be produced without that assumption.

Privilege. Non-waiver agreements are available in some regimes and should be requested rather than assumed.