Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 407
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.090 (2026)

Attorney general may request court order to produce evidentiary material

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  407.090.  Attorney general may request court order to produce evidentiary material — request filed where. — Whenever any person fails to comply with any civil investigative demand duly served upon him under section 407.040 or whenever satisfactory copying or reproduction of any such material cannot be done and such person refuses to surrender such material, the attorney general, through such officers or attorneys as he may designate, may file, in the trial court of general jurisdiction of a county or judicial district in which such person resides, is found, or transacts business, and serve upon such person a petition for an order of such court for the enforcement of such civil investigative demand; except that, if such person transacts business in more than one county or judicial district such petition shall be filed in the county or judicial district in which such person maintains his principal place of business, or in such other county or judicial district as may be agreed upon by the parties to such petition.  Whenever any petition is filed in the trial court of general jurisdiction of a county or judicial district under this section, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter so presented, and to enter such order or orders as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of section 407.040.  Any final order so entered shall be subject to appeal to the state supreme court.  Any disobedience of any final order entered under this section by any court shall be punished as a contempt thereof.

­­--------

(L. 1967 p. 607 § 9, A.L. 1985 H.B. 96, et al.)

Effective 5-31-85

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: State ex rel. Koster v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Koster v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “The petition further requested the trial court to order Charter to respond to both CIDs pursuant to section 407.090. The parties agreed that the pertinent facts were not in dispute and filed dueling motions for judgment on the pleadings.”
State ex rel. Ashcroft v. Goldberg, 608 S.W.2d 385 (Mo. 1980). · cites it 3× “Appellant failed to comply and respondent thereafter filed a petition in the trial court, pursuant to § 407.090, seeking an “order” of enforcement.”
The Washington Univ., Respondent, v. Attorney Gen. of the State of Missouri, Appellant. (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 15× “6 Section 407.090 permits the Attorney General to file a petition to require CIDs be enforced “[w]henever any person fails to comply with any [CID] duly served ….”
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Sw. Missouri, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Andrew Bailey, Attorney Gen., State of Missouri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× “The AG answered PPGR’s petition and filed a counterclaim to enforce the CID under § 407.090. After PPGR answered the AG’s counterclaim, the parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.”
Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State of Missouri ex rel. Attorney Gen. Andrew Bailey (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “CIDs are not independently enforceable, and the Attorney General, pursuant to section 407.090, must seek a court order to require a recalcitrant recipient of the CID to respond.”
State of Missouri ex rel. Attorney Gen. Chris Koster v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., D/B/A Charter Commc'ns, Charter Fiberlink-Missouri, LLC & Charter Advanced Servs. (MO) LLC (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “The petition further requested the trial court to order Charter to respond to both CIDs pursuant to section 407.090. The parties agreed that the pertinent facts were not in dispute and filed dueling motions for judgment on the pleadings.”
Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton (D.D.C. 2024). · cites it 2× “]” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.090 . The Petition accused Media Matters of “us[ing] fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to trick advertisers into removing their advertisements from X, formerly Twitter, one of the last platforms dedicated to free speech in America.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.