2surface temperatures as a result of the use of fossil fuels,the Attorney General launched a FATA investigation into thegrants Dr. Mann received while employed by UVA. The AttorneyGeneral issued two CIDs pursuant to Code § 8.01-216.10(A), oneto the University and one to its Rector and Visitors.
Thecontent of the CIDs was identical. In relevant part, each CIDprovided:This [CID] is issued in connection with aninvestigation by the Attorney General into possibleviolations by Dr. Michael Mann of §§ 8.01-216.3(A)(1), (2), and (3) of FATA. The investigationrelates to data and other materials that Dr. Mannpresented in seeking awards/grants funded, in wholeor in part, by the Commonwealth of Virginia or any ofits agencies as well as data, materials andcommunications that Dr. Mann created, presented ormade in connection with or related to the followingawards/grants.The CID then went on to list five grants, each of which was onDr. Mann's curriculum vitae. Four of the grants were funded bythe federal government and one was funded by UVA.UVA petitioned the circuit court to set aside the CIDs,arguing, among other things, that the Attorney General had nostatutory authority to serve CIDs upon agencies of theCommonwealth and that the CIDs were defective in that theyfailed to state the nature of the conduct alleged. The circuit
At oral argument, counsel for both sides agreed that, forthe purposes of this case, the entities were one and the same;Deputy Attorney General Wesley G. Russell, Jr., explained thatUVA had been served with process under both titles merely to bethorough and avoid error.