AG Paxton seeks protective order after courts uphold his deposition in whistleblower suit

Embattled Attorney General Ken Paxton is seeking a protective order to quash his upcoming deposition and those of his former high-ranking deputies in the wrongful termination lawsuit brought by the four ex-aides, who say they were unjustly fired for complaining to federal authorities about Paxton's possible misconduct in helping a friend.

Paxton has sought to block his deposition in the case, but after the 3rd Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court both affirmed a lower court's order compelling him to testify under oath, the attorney general on Thursday filed a motion in Travis County state District Court announcing his intent to accept a final ruling in the case. However, state District Judge Jan Soifer on Friday kept in place an earlier mandate requiring Paxton's deposition to occur by Feb. 9.

In December, Soifer issued a ruling ordering Paxton and high-ranking officials in his office to testify under oath about the situation that led to the former top aides' exit. They had complained to the FBI that they believed Paxton was misusing his office to help a friend and campaign donor, Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, then the target of a separate federal financial crimes investigation.

In response to Soifer continuing to seek the attorney general's deposition, Paxton on Friday filed a motion in state District Court seeking a protective order to quash the depositions and to stop the whistleblowers from seeking any further discovery in the case.

In the motion, Paxton's attorney, Bill Helfand, argues that the materials being sought through subpoenas and depositions are privileged or have been previously disclosed. Helfand said the whistleblowers' deposition requests are "overbroad" and no longer necessary on account of Paxton's willingness to accept a verdict.

More: By walking away from whistleblowers' suit, Ken Paxton keeps avoiding answering questions

"The OAG has consented to the entry of a judgement consistent with the statutory limits of the Texas Whistleblower Act, the sole end sought by Plaintiffs' suit," Paxton's Friday court filing said. "Thus, there is no legitimate basis for Plaintiffs to attempt to (mis)use this lawsuit to satisfy their own prurient interest in any materials, let alone those ordered privileged, as these documents and things were.

"The Court should quash the subpoena."

In filing a request for a final judgment last week, Paxton expressed disdain for the lawsuit brought by the whistleblowers, calling his motion an attempt to end efforts to "sabotage" his leadership and save taxpayer dollars.

Paxton also argued that many of the whistleblowers' claims were previously addressed publicly during an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate in September, in which he was acquitted of all charges of abusing his office to assist Paul.

"For these reasons, today, my office acted to end this wasteful litigation by filing an amended answer that — consistent with the previous decision to settle this case — will enable the trial court to enter a final judgment without any further litigation," Paxton said in a statement announcing his decision Thursday.

The whistleblowers and Paxton had reached a $3.3 million settlement agreement in the case, but the agreement fell apart after the Legislature during its regular session last year refused to pay for the settlement. The House instead opened an investigation into the whistleblowers' claims and voted overwhelmingly in late May to impeach Paxton on 20 charges, including bribery and abuse of office. Ultimately, the Senate acquitted him.

Neither Helfand nor Paxton's office responded to an American-Statesman request for comment Monday.

In response to Paxton's complaints Thursday that the whistleblowers' lawsuit lacks merit and a final ruling should be made, attorney Joe Knight, who represents Ryan Vassar, Paxton's former deputy legal counsel and one of the plaintiffs in the case, called Paxton's argument "utter crap" that has been rejected multiple times in four separate courts.

Attorneys for the whistleblowers did not immediately respond to Statesman requests for comment on Monday about Paxton's motion for a protective order.

Soifer, who will again rule on Paxton's motion for a protective order after rejecting a previous attempt to halt the depositions in December, reconfirmed the timeline of officials' testimony Friday.

As per the court order, the depositions will take place in Austin, with Paxton set to appear for his testimony at 9 a.m. Feb. 1.

Depositions will continue with First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster scheduled for Feb. 2; Paxton's chief of staff, Lesley French Henneke, on Feb. 7; and senior adviser Michelle Smith on Feb. 9.

As of Monday afternoon, a hearing date had not been scheduled for Paxton's request for a protective order.

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Paxton again asks his deposition not be required in whistleblower case