Different courts have different reputations, with some regions seen as more friendly to industry than others. So when Exxon was hit with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s subpoena for documents, it filed objections in both Mass. and in a US District Court in Texas. Texas, of course, is generally thought to be pro-industry and pro-fossil fuel biased.
In the pair of filings forming her response, Massachusettes AG Maura Healey argues that the Texas court should toss out ExxonMobil’s case, since it’s duplicative of their Mass. filing, and because the federal Texas District Court has no jurisdiction over another state’s investigation. And according to Healey, it’s a “transparent attempt at forum-shopping” as Texas has zero relevance to the investigation.
Healey also points out that ExxonMobil’s technical defenses are nullified by their cooperation with the NY AG’s investigation. Since it’s already provided over 700,000 pages of documents to New York, the company’s claims that turning over documents would be too costly and would cause irreparable harm are clearly false.
One of the cases Healey cites for precedent is Mississippi AG Jim Hood’s suit against Google, wherein the tech giant tried to prevent documents being handed over to the AG. Healey’s reference to Hood could be why he joined 11 AGs from other states, the Virgin Islands and DC to file an amicus curiae brief supporting Healey. This is noteworthy because although he’s a Democrat, he’s the first from such a deep red state to signal support for the investigations and sided against the EPA and with ExxonMobil-friendly Texas AG Ken Paxton in a lawsuit last year.
Regardless, Hood’s involvement suggests he may soon join the ranks of fossil fuel enemies besieged by vexatious FOIAs from fossil-fuel-funded EELI, which recently sued for and won the release of a document signed by the group of AGs investigating what #ExxonKnew. The document sought to keep the investigation confidential, and was described by the NY AG office as “a standard, routine, and responsible law enforcement practice.” After all, if someone knows you’re investigating, they might do something to hinder that process.
Where AGs see standard practice, EELI dreams up conspiracies, calling it a “sweeping cloak of secrecy” and that if they’re not conducting “a purely political campaign, they should have no problem explaining to the public what they are doing.”
This is ironic, given that the same exact thing could easily be said of ExxonMobil, who for all the sound and fury of their op-eds and lawsuits, remain silent on their $30 million in climate denial funding. Surely then they should have no problem explaining to the public what they were doing with that money.