A Travis County judge has ruled that Attorney General Ken Paxton must testify under oath in a years-long whistleblower lawsuit that alleges Paxton abused his power to benefit a friend and political donor.
After a two-hour hearing in Austin, Judge Jan Soifer ruled that Paxton and three aides will be required to testify, according to KXAN.
In addition to Paxton, Soifer ruled that depositions will be given by Brent Webster, the first assistant attorney general; Lesley French Henneke, chief of staff for the Office of the Attorney General; and Michelle Smith, a longtime political advisor for Paxton.
Soifer said that each of the people ordered to give depositions could have knowledge about issues that are “at the heart” of the trial, noting that none of them are just “figureheads.”
“In this case, I believe the plaintiffs have shown good cause that these four people have unique and superior knowledge of discoverable information,” she said during the hearing, as reported by The Texas Tribune.
Tom Nesbitt, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, said that he expects Paxton and his legal team will fight Paxton’s deposition since “[t]his is what happens in civil litigation.”
“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,” stated Nesbitt, according to KXAN.
The lawsuit revolves around four OAG whistleblowers — James “Blake” Brickman, Ryan Vassar, David Maxwell, and Mark Penley — who claim they were unjustly fired after reporting Paxton to the FBI in 2020.
The whistleblowers had informed the FBI about concerns that the attorney general was abusing his power to benefit friend and political donor Nate Paul.
Paxton and the whistleblowers reached a settlement in February that would have required the attorney general to pay $3.3 million in damages.
Once finalized, Paxton requested that the state pay the settlement, prompting the Texas House of Representatives to further investigate the claims from the lawsuit.
After the investigation, the House drafted 20 articles of impeachment against the attorney general, claiming that he abused his power.
The House then impeached Paxton by a vote of 121-23, which was a process that cost roughly $4.3 million in taxpayer funds, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
The Texas Senate later acquitted Paxton on 16 of the 20 impeachment articles, and the remaining four charges were dropped.
Following the impeachment process, the plaintiffs requested that the Texas Supreme Court reinstate the case.
Paxton’s legal team then filed a temporary restraining order and attempted to pause the lawsuit, claiming that the whistleblowers violated the initial settlement, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
Burnet County Judge Evan Stubbs quickly paused the lawsuit and stated that there was “good cause to believe [the whistleblowers] have engaged, are engaged, and will continue to engage in acts and practices inconsistent with the Mediated Settlement Agreement.”
However, the trial is now set to move forward after Soifer’s ruling, but it is still undecided when it will officially begin.
Bill Helfand, an attorney for Paxton, did get approval from both Soifer and Nesbitt to have the trial start after the third week of January, citing personal scheduling conflicts, per The Texas Tribune.
