Texas Whistleblowers Fight Back Against AG Ken Paxton's Attempts to Block Depositions

Former Texas AG employees turned whistleblowers are fighting back against Ken Paxton's attempt to avoid giving testimony in a wrongful termination case. In a filing to the state Supreme Court, attorneys for the whistleblowers argued that Paxton's push to settle without giving deposition is a "ploy" to gaslight the judiciary.

"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.

This is the third time the state's highest civil court is considering the case, which began in 2020. Paxton is appealing a district court order that would have required him and three of his top deputies to be deposed. The whistleblowers argue that allowing Paxton to skip testimony will deter future state employees from reporting misconduct.

"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," they wrote.

Paxton's office has argued the case should be concluded and that the whistleblowers are seeking political retribution. A previous $3.3 million settlement failed after the House voted to approve 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton, largely due to his relationship with indicted Austin developer Nate Paul. Paxton was later acquitted by the state Senate.

On Thursday, a federal court ordered that testimony from state agency officials, including Paxton and his deputies, can move forward as part of a grand jury proceeding in San Antonio. The grand jury is believed to be investigating the relationship between Paxton and Paul.

Sources:

• Whistleblowers' filing to Texas Supreme Court
• Paxton's filing to Texas Supreme Court
• American-Statesman request for comment
• 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling