(1) If any person fails to cooperate with any investigation pursuant to section 6-1-107 or fails to obey any subpoena pursuant to section 6-1-108, the attorney general or a district attorney may apply to the appropriate district court for an appropriate order to effect the purposes of this article 1. The application shall state that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the order applied for is necessary to investigate a deceptive trade practice as defined in this article 1. If the court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist, the court in its order may:
(a) Grant injunctive relief restraining the sale or advertisement of any property by such person;
(b) Require the attendance of or the production of documents by such person, or both;
(c) Grant such other or further relief as may be necessary to obtain compliance by such person.
Source: L. 69: p. 374, § 6. C.R.S. 1963: § 55-5-6. L. 77: IP(1) amended, p. 349, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2018: IP(1) amended, (HB 18-1028), ch. 42, p. 467, § 1, effective March 15.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Trade Secret Litigation: Injunctions and Other Equitable Remedies", see 48 U. Colo. L. Rev. 189 (1977).
What subsection (1)(c) authorizes. Subsection (1)(c) authorizes the issuance of any appropriate order under the circumstances as opposed to permitting only an order to comply with the original subpoena. People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Am. Banco Corp., 194 Colo. 32, 570 P.2d 825 (1977).
The burden of seeking court review under article 1 of title 6 and of satisfying the court that reasonable grounds exist to believe the subpoena is necessary to terminate or prevent a deceptive trade practice is upon the attorney general (now attorney general or district attorney). People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Am. Banco Corp., 194 Colo. 32, 570 P.2d 825 (1977).
Hearsay evidence is admissible in proceedings to enforce subpoenas. People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Am. Banco Corp., 194 Colo. 32, 570 P.2d 825 (1977).
An award of attorney fees and costs is required as dictated in § 6-1-113 in favor of the state when the state successfully enforces an investigative subpoena pursuant to this section. State ex rel. Coffman v. Vaden Law Firm LLC, 2015 COA 68, 411 P.3d 153.