Paxton request for pause on whistleblower lawsuit depositions denied
The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request for an emergency stay of impending depositions in the ongoing whistleblower lawsuit that sparked his impeachment this year, according to a Wednesday court filing.
AUSTIN (KXAN) – The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request for an emergency stay of impending depositions in the whistleblower lawsuit that sparked his impeachment this year, according to a Wednesday court filing.
The whistleblower plaintiffs are seeking depositions of Paxton, First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, Chief of Staff Lesley French Henneke, and Senior Advisor to the Attorney General Michelle Smith, according to a writ.
The lawsuit began in 2020 after several former officials in Paxton’s office became whistleblowers and reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged misconduct. The whistleblowers later sued for wrongful termination.
The case has had massive repercussions at the Capitol. Paxton and the whistleblowers previously reached a settlement agreement of $3.3 million to end the case. Paxton was also asked to apologize for calling the plaintiffs “rogue employees,” according to court records. When Paxton asked the Legislature to fund the settlement, a House committee initiated an investigation of the whistleblowers’ claims. That probe triggered Paxton’s impeachment and temporary suspension from office over the summer.
In September, Paxton was acquitted in a Senate trial of all articles of impeachment. Following the acquittal, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that same month that the wrongful termination lawsuit could move forward. The plaintiffs in the case are Blake Brickman, David Maxwell, Mark Penley and Ryan Vassar.
On Dec. 20, Travis County District Judge Jan Soifer ordered Paxton to testify under oath in the lawsuit. Paxton quickly appealed Soifer’s decision to the Third Court of Appeals. On Dec. 22, Paxton’s team filed two items: an emergency motion for temporary relief – which was denied on Wednesday – and a petition for writ of mandamus.
In the writ of mandamus, Paxton argues Soifer abused her discretion, and discovery involving depositions of “high-level executive officials” should not move forward because the case was resolved in a mediated settlement agreement.
Paxton asked the Third Court of Appeals to order the trial court to enforce the settlement agreement and quash the depositions or “set reasonable limitations on the time, scope, and subject matter of the depositions,” according to the writ.
TJ Turner, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said, “This is just Ken Paxton’s latest effort to manufacture delay and avoid testifying.”
Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from KXAN.
The Third Court of Appeals requested the whistleblower plaintiffs respond to Paxton’s writ of mandamus by Jan. 4, 2024.