Whistleblowers denounce 'Paxton ploy' over testimony in latest Texas Supreme Court filing

Fighting against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's effort to halt a series of court-ordered depositions, former agency employees turned whistleblowers are again arguing to the Supreme Court of Texas that "Paxton's ploy" is an attempt to gaslight the judiciary to avoid giving his recorded testimony.

In a response to the state Supreme Court filed on Tuesday, attorneys for four former high-ranking deputies within the attorney general's office — who have since publicly expressed concerns over Paxton's conduct, resulting in his brief removal from office last year and a lingering dispute over a settlement in the wrongful termination case — pointed to Paxton's push to settle the case without giving his deposition as a disingenuous play counter to legal precedent.

Paxton's attorneys have argued the case should conclude in short order based on the willingness of the state's top attorney to concede to a final judgment. But the plaintiffs argue that, without the depositions, a future Legislature-funded settlement may be in jeopardy and that allowing Paxton to skirt a previously ordered testimony will act as a deterrent to future state employees looking to report improper conduct.

"Knowing that a government defendant could cut short litigation without admitting the claims or allowing them to be developed, while continuing to publicly smear plaintiffs and curtailing any effective relief, would only chill those whom the law was meant to safeguard," the whistleblowers' attorneys wrote in the June 25 filing.

For the third time, the state's highest civil court is considering the machinations of the whistleblowers' lawsuit that began in 2020, this time based on Paxton's appeal of a Travis County District Court order in January that would have required the depositions of Paxton and three of his top deputies.

Paxton — along with First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster; Paxton's chief of staff, Lesley French Henneke; and senior adviser Michelle Smith — had been scheduled to be deposed in February prior to the current appeal to the Supreme Court.

Reiterating the necessity for a complete discovery process, the plaintiffs in the latest filing again pushed against Paxton's arguments that he and his office are immune from testifying on the situation that led to the employees' firing and that continuing the case is unnecessary based on his willingness to accept a final judgment.

"If this Court were to endorse OAG’s (Office of the Attorney General's) scheme — the 'Paxton Ploy' — it would create a new procedural rule solely for the benefit of public officeholders who have something to hide," the attorneys wrote.

More: Texas AG Ken Paxton to pay $271,000 in restitution to resolve securities fraud charges

In a response to the state Supreme Court in early June, Paxton's team argued the whistleblowers have been seeking retribution and political clout in attempts to secure a future settlement in a case that has been unnecessarily extended and delayed over the past four years.

"For all intents and purposes, as a legal dispute, the case was — or should have been — over," Paxton's office wrote in its June 5 filing to court.

A previous, tentative $3.3 million agreement between Paxton and the whistleblowers failed in 2023 after Paxton asked for a legislative appropriation to fund the settlement, which prompted House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, to tap the House Committee on General Investigating to look into the situation.

Upon investigation, the House voted to approve 20 articles of impeachment based largely on Paxton's relationship with since-indicted Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, in a case that was built on many of the complaints voiced earlier by Paxton's hand-picked former deputies.

Paxton was then acquitted last fall in a state Senate trial on the matter, placing him back in office.

"It would be inequitable for the State’s judicial branch to assist its executive branch in engineering a judgment that its legislative branch views as a sham," the attorneys wrote Tuesday. "Plaintiffs must be able to develop an evidentiary record through discovery in support of a judgment that the State will actually pay. Without this process, a judgment is a win in only the hollowest sense."

Paxton's office did not respond to an American-Statesman request for comment on Thursday.

However, a veiled court order released publicly on Wednesday evening from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could be an indication that Paxton and his deputies may be forced to testify as part of a federal grand jury proceeding in San Antonio, which was impaneled last year to further probe the claims of a mutually beneficial relationship between Paxton and Paul.

More: AG Ken Paxton asks Texas Supreme Court to overturn election fraud reprimand against him

While the court's order does not specifically name Paxton or the attorney general's office, the ruling removes a stay on testimony of state agency officials based on attorney-client privilege concerns, allowing a proceeding scheduled for July 2 to move forward.

Based on the timeline of the case, the type of relief being requested and the nature of the proceeding, it is believed the grand jury is looking into the relationship between Paxton and Paul.

"In the petition, the Agency asks this court to direct the district court to vacate its repeated rulings annulling the Agency’s attorney-client privilege pertaining to matters implicated in a grand jury investigation into alleged wrongdoing by senior Agency personnel," the federal court filing reads. "Because the Agency fails to show a clear and indisputable right to relief, the Agency’s petition fails."

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Whistleblowers push against AG Paxton's effort to toss out depositions