Judge Orders Texas AG Ken Paxton to Testify in ‘Whistleblower’ Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (C) sits between defense attorneys Tony Buzbee (L) and Mitch Little (R) before his impeachment trial resumes in the Senate Chamber at the Texas Capitol in Austin on Sept. 15, 2023. Sam Owens/The San Antonio Express-News via AP, Pool

A judge has ordered Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and three of his top aides to testify under oath in the 2020 so-called whistleblower lawsuit against him.

District Judge Jan Soifer, at a hearing in Austin on Dec. 20, granted a motion to compel the depositions of Mr. Paxton, chief of staff Lesley French Henneke, political aide Michelle Smith, and First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster.

“In this case, I believe the plaintiffs have shown good cause that these four people have superior knowledge of discoverable information,” the judge said during the hearing, The Texas Tribune reported. Ms. Soifer said that each of the four people was aware of the issues “at the heart” of the case.

In November, the plaintiffs filed a request asking the court to require Mr. Paxton and his aides to sit for depositions.

“They lost badly,” Tom Nesbitt, one of the lawyers representing the whistleblowers, told reporters after the hearing. “I don’t put anything past Ken Paxton. There’s no limit to the amount of taxpayer money he will spend to hide from accountability, so I’m sure they’ll try some kind of appeal.”

It’s unclear whether Mr. Paxton’s legal team will try to appeal the judge’s decision.

The case involves four former top deputies who sued the attorney general’s office after they claimed they were wrongfully fired from the agency.

The plaintiffs include Mr. Paxton’s former head of law enforcement, David Maxwell; former head of criminal justice, Mark Penley; former policy director, James Brickman; and former deputy general for legal counsel, Mark Vassar.

Attempts to Enforce Tentative Settlement Rejected

In February, the parties had reached a tentative $3.3 million settlement, at which point Mr. Paxton asked the Texas Legislature to fund the payout.

The attorney general’s request kicked off a secret investigation by a House committee that led to 20 articles of impeachment against Mr. Paxton.

In September, following eight days of testimony, the Senate jury dismissed 16 articles of impeachment and four others that were held in abeyance.

Despite a lack of evidence presented by the former employees during the trial, they vowed to continue their fight against Mr. Paxton, claiming the case hadn’t been resolved.

Later that month, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing them to continue moving forward with the lawsuit.

Mr. Paxton’s office tried to block the case in Travis County by filing a lawsuit against the former employees in nearby Burnet County.

Burnet County Judge Evan Stubbs denied Mr. Paxton’s request for a permanent injunction, allowing the lawsuit to continue in Travis County.

“The Court, having considered the motions and the responses on file and having convened a hearing on the motions, is of the opinion that the motions should be denied,” wrote Judge Stubbs, according to a court document obtained by The Epoch Times.

The state’s top lawyer argues that the settlement agreements earlier this year should be enforced.

“If plaintiffs are allowed to disregard their statements with the State, the important work of my office, and litigation for states agencies across Texas, would be significantly impaired,” Mr. Paxton told The Texas Tribune in a statement last month.

Mr. Paxton’s legal team has since abandoned the Burnet County lawsuit.

During the Dec. 20 hearing, the judge rejected another attempt by Mr. Paxton’s legal team to enforce the tentative settlement, which still hasn’t been approved by the Texas Legislature, one of the provisions in the agreement.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Mr. Paxton was the decision-maker when it came to the firings of the former employees, who accused the attorney general of bribery and abuse of power.

“Ken Paxton made these decisions,” Mr. Nesbitt argued, noting that it would be unheard of for someone to argue that the decision-maker wouldn’t have “special knowledge” of the case.

Mr. Paxton’s lawyer, Bill Helfand, asked the judge if the depositions could wait until later in January 2024 due to personal scheduling conflicts. Mr. Nesbitt agreed with the request.