In a major development in the long-running whistleblower case involving Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Texas Supreme Court has blocked the depositions of Paxton and three of his top aides. The decision effectively halts an effort to compel testimony over allegations that Paxton and his office retaliated against employees who reported alleged misconduct to federal authorities.
The ruling stems from a 2020 lawsuit filed by four former employees of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). The plaintiffs allege they were fired after reporting claims of abuse of office and corruption involving Paxton to the FBI. These allegations later formed the basis of an unsuccessful impeachment bid against Paxton in 2023.
Court Halts Depositions
Travis County Judge Jan Soifer had ordered depositions of Paxton, First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, Chief of Staff Lesley French Henneke, and Senior Adviser Michelle Smith. The depositions were set for February 2024. However, earlier this year, the OAG filed a petition asserting that its January 2024 concession of key facts in the case resolved the dispute, making further proceedings unnecessary.
In a unanimous opinion released Friday, the Texas Supreme Court sided with the OAG, ordering the lower court to vacate its deposition orders.
“While we agree with the former employees that OAG’s concessions do not preclude all discovery, we agree with OAG that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the depositions of these four witnesses without considering that the only fact issue on which those witnesses are likely to provide information — OAG’s liability under the Whistleblower Act — is now uncontested,” the court wrote.
The court also echoed the OAG’s argument that the remaining issue in the case is determining the amount of damages owed to the plaintiffs — a matter for which the depositions were deemed irrelevant.
Whistleblowers Push Back
The whistleblowers — Blake Brickman, Mark Penley, David Maxwell, and Ryan Vassar — have consistently argued that further discovery would provide critical insights into their allegations of wrongdoing.
In a motion filed earlier this month, the plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to expedite its ruling, accusing the OAG and Paxton of engaging in taxpayer-funded delay tactics to avoid accountability.
“Ken Paxton is trying to stick his own client, the people of Texas, with a huge money judgment," said Tom Nesbitt, an attorney for Brickman. “He is doing so for one reason: to avoid having to give testimony about his own personal corruption.” Nesbitt criticized the Supreme Court’s decision as endorsing Paxton’s alleged attempts to avoid scrutiny.
The court suggested that any additional inquiry into the allegations might be better suited to the Texas Legislature, which has investigatory tools at its disposal.
A Case Years in the Making
The whistleblower case has been winding through Texas courts since 2020. The lawsuit centers on claims by the former employees that they were wrongfully terminated in retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct. While the OAG conceded liability earlier this year, the case has not yet reached a resolution on compensatory damages.
This latest decision by the Texas Supreme Court leaves the whistleblowers with limited options for forcing depositions, raising questions about the future of the case. However, the plaintiffs may explore other legal avenues to press for further discovery.
