Description: Action by Exxon Mobil Corporation to bar enforcement of civil investigative demand issued by Massachusetts attorney general and subpoena issued by New York attorney general.
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/15/2022 Opinion Download Appeal dismissed as to the New York Attorney General and dismissal of complaint affirmed as to Massachusetts Attorney General. Second Circuit Rejected Exxon Appeal of Dismissal of Constitutional Challenge to New York and Massachusetts Climate Investigations. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) appeal of a district court’s dismissal of Exxon’s lawsuit asserting that the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general engaged in viewpoint discrimination and violated Exxon’s constitutional rights by pursuing investigations of Exxon’s allegedly deceptive speech regarding climate change. The Second Circuit concluded that Exxon’s claims against the New York Attorney General were moot because the Attorney General had concluded its investigation and Exxon had prevailed in the subsequent state court enforcement action that the Attorney General brought. The Second Circuit further found that Exxon “failed to establish a reasonable expectation that the conduct at issue” (the Attorney General’s fraud investigation) would recur, particularly because the Attorney General decided not to appeal the decision in favor of Exxon. The Second Circuit also rejected Exxon’s contention that injunctive relief was still available because the federal court could order the return or destruction of documents produced in discovery or the appointment of a monitor. In addition, the Second Circuit found that Exxon’s request for a declaratory judgment did not constitute a claim for prospective relief to remedy an ongoing constitutional violation. The Second Circuit also agreed with the district court that the doctrine of res judicata precluded Exxon’s claims against the Massachusetts Attorney General because Exxon could have raised its claims in an earlier state court proceeding in Massachusetts. 01/24/2020 Letter Download Letter filed on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corporation to update court about recent developments in Massachusetts and New York litigation. 01/24/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by New York Attorney General in response to Exxon's letter of January 13, 2020. 01/16/2020 Letter Download Letter filed on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corporation in response to Massachusetts Attorney General's letter of December 18, 2019. 01/13/2020 Letter Download Letter filed on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corporation regarding recent decision in New York case. 12/18/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Massachusetts Attorney General in response to Exxon's letter of November 15, 2019. 12/03/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by New York Attorney General in response to Exxon letter of November 15, 2019. 12/17/2018 Opposition Download Memorandum of law filed by plaintiff-appellant in opposition to New York attorney general's motion to dismiss appeal. 12/14/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted by Massachusetts attorney general concerning Exxon's notice of supplemental authority. 12/07/2018 Motion Download Motion to dismiss appeal as moot filed by New York attorney general. 11/30/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted by New York attorney general concerning Exxon's notice of supplemental authority. 11/20/2018 Letter Download Exxon submitted notice of supplemental authority. Exxon Told Second Circuit That District Court Decision in NRA Case Supported Exxon’s Viewpoint Discrimination Claims Against Attorneys General. On November 20, 2018, Exxon Mobil Corporation’s counsel in its appeal of the dismissal of its lawsuit challenging the climate change-related investigations of the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general submitted a letter to advise the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of a district court decision in the Northern District of New York that denied New York State officials’ motion to dismiss viewpoint discrimination claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Exxon argued that its allegations against the attorneys general should have been reviewed under the same standards as were applied to the NRA’s claims, and contended that the court in the NRA case had rejected many of the arguments made by the attorneys general and their amici, including that actual chilled speech was necessary for a First Amendment claim and that viewpoint discrimination cannot arise from statements that might qualify as “government speech.” 10/25/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted clarifying roles of States of Maine and Mississippi in amicus briefs. 10/19/2018 Reply Download Reply brief filed for plaintiff-appellant. Briefing Completed in Exxon’s Second Circuit Appeal of Dismissal of Lawsuit Against State Attorneys General. Briefing was completed in Exxon Mobil Corporation’s appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of Exxon’s lawsuit seeking to bar—largely on constitutional grounds—investigations by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general of Exxon’s climate change-related disclosures. Exxon filed its reply brief on October 19, contending that its allegations established viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and that it had also plausibly alleged other claims. Exxon contended its constitutional claims were ripe and that res judicata did not bar its claims against the Massachusetts attorney general because the company did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate its First Amendment and other constitutional claims in state court. 10/12/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed in support of defendants-appellees by states and District of Columbia. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia argued in their brief that the First Amendment did not preclude states from conducting anti-fraud investigations and securities regulation. The amici states said they had an compelling interest in maintaining their investigative and consumer protection functions and contended that immunizing misleading and deceptive statements under an overbroad reading of the First Amendment would detrimentally affect consumers, investors, and financial markets. 10/12/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by former Massachusetts attorneys general in support of appellees and urging affirmance. In their amicus brief, former Massachusetts attorneys general addressed how the Massachusetts consumer protection law operates and asserted that Exxon should not be permitted to collaterally attack an investigation in federal court that it had unsuccessfully challenged in state court. 10/12/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by professors of law in support of appellees. Three amicus briefs were filed in support of the attorneys general. A group of law professors with expertise in First Amendment law asserted in their amicus brief that profit-seeking companies do not have First Amendment rights to issue false or misleading statements that deceive investors or consumers. 10/05/2018 Brief Download Brief filed for Massachusetts attorney general. The Massachusetts attorney general argued that Exxon failed to state plausible claims and also argued that Massachusetts state court decisions independently precluded Exxon’s claims. 10/05/2018 Brief Download Brief filed for New York attorney general. On October 5, 2018, both attorneys general filed their briefs urging the Second Circuit to affirm the dismissal of the case. The New York attorney general argued that Exxon’s lawsuit was not ripe because failure to comply with its investigative subpoena would not have automatic consequences. The New York attorney general further argued that, in any event, the district court had correctly concluded that Exxon failed to adequately plead a First Amendment claim or any other claim, including Fourth Amendment, due process, conspiracy, and dormant Commerce Clause claims. The attorney general also contended that the district court had properly found that amendment of Exxon’s complaint would be futile. 08/10/2018 Amicus Brief Download Motion filed for leave to file brief of amici curiae National Association of Manufacturers and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of plaintiff-appellant. 08/03/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by states in support of appellant and urging reversal. NAM, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 12 States Weighed in to Support Exxon. Two motions were filed seeking leave to amicus briefs in support of Exxon. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and U.S. Chamber of Commerce—which characterized their organizations as “two of the main representatives of the business community”—asserted that their proposed brief would be helpful “because this matter presents important and complex issues regarding the scope of a state’s power to subject private businesses to overbroad and burdensome legal investigations that chill First Amendment expression.” Twelve states, led by Texas, said they had “a direct and vital interest in the issues before the Court” because “state attorneys general possess an inherent duty to preserve their roles as evenhanded enforcers of the law.” The states argued that the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general were “embracing one side of a multi-faceted and robust policy debate, and simultaneously seeking to censor opposing viewpoints and that “[i]n doing so, they are violating ExxonMobil’s constitutional rights, abusing their power, and eroding public confidence in public officers.” The attorneys general’s briefs are due on October 5. 08/03/2018 Brief Download Brief and special appendix filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. Exxon Argued for Reversal of District Court’s Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Attorneys General. On August 3, 2018, Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) filed its opening brief asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal of Exxon’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of investigations by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general of climate change-related disclosures. Exxon argued that the district court had failed to address its viewpoint discrimination claims, which Exxon described as the “centerpiece” of its complaint. Exxon also contended that the district court had erroneously imposed an evidentiary burden on Exxon rather than accepting what Exxon argued were plausible allegations while also improperly drawing inferences favoring the attorneys general. Exxon further argued that it had adequately pleaded its claims under the Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Commerce Clause regardless of whether it had adequately pleaded that the attorneys general were motivated by an improper purpose. Exxon also sought to reverse the dismissal on res judicata grounds of its claims against the Massachusetts attorney general. Exxon argued that its constitutional claims were not raised or decided in Massachusetts state court proceedings and that it had not had a full and fair opportunity to raise the claims. 05/31/2018 Order Download Exxon's motion for removal of the case from the expedited appeals calendar granted. On May 31, 2018, a Second Circuit Court of Appeals motions panel granted Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) motion to move Exxon’s appeal of the dismissal of its challenge to the Massachusetts and New York attorneys general climate change investigations from the expedited calendar to the regular calendar. Exxon’s opening brief is due on August 3. 05/25/2018 Opposition Download Memorandum of law filed in opposition to appellant's motion to remove appeal from expedited calendar. The New York attorney general said removing the appeal from the expedited calendar would “harm the public interest by prolonging the pendency of this meritless and disruptive lawsuit” and noted that failure to state a claim was the sole basis for dismissal of claims against the New York attorney general. 05/24/2018 Motion Download Memorandum of law filed in support of motion for removal of case from expedited appeals calendar. In a motion to remove its appeal from the expedited calendar, Exxon argued that the appeal did not meet the Second Circuit’s requirements for expedited treatment because it had been dismissed in part on res judicata grounds based on a Massachusetts state court decision declining to set aside the attorney general’s civil investigative demand. Exxon said the res judicata ruling was not for failure to state a claim and that the res judicata ruling’s complexity and novelty made it unsuitable for expedited review, as did the appeal’s raising of “novel issues with far-reaching consequences for the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint discrimination.” 05/24/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Massachusetts attorney general to Exxon's motion to remove case from expedited appeals calendar. Both attorneys general opposed removing the appeal from the expedited calendar. The Massachusetts attorney general argued that there was “nothing particularly complex or novel” about the district court’s opinion, that it was a “paradigmatic case” for inclusion on the expedited docket, and that expedited appeal would serve the public interest by preserving the attorney general’s ability to conduct her investigation without further delay. -
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Schneiderman
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/20/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by Exxon. Exxon Filed Notice That It Would Appeal Dismissal of Lawsuit Against New York and Massachusetts Attorneys General. Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) filed a notice of appeal on April 20, 2018, three weeks after the federal district court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the company’s lawsuit seeking to bar the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general from pursuing their investigations of Exxon’s climate change-related disclosures. 03/29/2018 Opinion and Order Download Motions to dismiss granted and motion to amend denied as futile. New York Federal Court Dismissed Exxon’s Lawsuit Claiming Attorney General Investigations Violated Its Constitutional Rights. The federal district court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Exxon Mobil Corporation’s action against the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general. Exxon alleged that the investigations of the attorneys general into Exxon’s climate change-related disclosures were part of a conspiracy to “silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.” Exxon asserted that the attorneys general had violated its constitutional rights, and that the investigations were preempted, violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and constituted common law abuse of process. The court found that “Exxon’s allegations that the [attorneys general] are pursuing bad faith investigations in order to violate Exxon’s constitutional rights are implausible and therefore must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.” The court also found that Exxon had not plausibly alleged essential elements of a dormant Commerce Claim and that its preemption claim also failed. In addition, the court found that it had personal jurisdiction over the Massachusetts attorney general but that res judicata barred the claims against her, based on an ongoing proceeding in Massachusetts state court. 02/22/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted by Exxon in response to supplemental authority submitted by New York attorney general. 02/16/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted by New York attorney general regarding supplemental authority. 02/01/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by Exxon in further support of motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 01/19/2018 Reply Download Reply memorandum of law filed in support of New York attorney general's motion to dismiss. The New York attorney general asserted that the proposed amendment of the complaint “does nothing to shore up Exxon’s deficient claims.” In particular, the New York attorney general said controlling Second Circuit precedent foreclosed a claim of politically motivated conspiracy and that, in any event, the “purportedly new information” offered by Exxon “would not make this claim plausible.” 01/19/2018 Reply Download Reply filed in further support of Attorney General Healey's renewed motion to dismiss. In reply papers in support of dismissal, the Massachusetts attorney general asserted that the amended complaint added no further facts regarding Attorney General Healey and would not cure the “fatal defects” of the claims against her. 01/12/2018 Complaint Download Proposed second amended complaint filed as exhibit to motion for leave to amend. 01/12/2018 Complaint Download Redlined second amended complaint filed as exhibit to motion for leave to amend. 01/12/2018 Motion Download Motion for leave to file a second amended complaint filed by Exxon. Exxon sought permission to amend its complaint to incorporate “additional documentary evidence” that had “come to light” since Exxon last amended its complaint in November 2016. The additional allegations included that organizers of a 2012 workshop had lobbied the attorneys general to pursue the investigations and that the New York attorney general had contacts with “billionaire activist Tom Steyer about campaign support in connection with his investigation of ExxonMobil.” Exxon’s proposed amended complaint also contained allegations regarding communications with the Rockefeller Family Fund and regarding the Fund’s financing of “so-called investigative journalism that the Attorneys General have used as a pretext,” and allegations of improper concealment of public records and regarding a shift in the New York attorney general’s “investigative theory.” 01/12/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Exxon to motions to dismiss. In its opposition to the motions for dismissal for failure to state a claim, Exxon contended that its allegations established viewpoint discrimination and unlawful conspiracy to violate its rights. Exxon also asserted that it had preserved its right to bring a Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim and had adequately pled such a claim. In addition, Exxon argued that its allegations stated a due process violation based on the “impermissible bias” of the attorneys general, that the allegations stated a claim under the dormant Commerce Clause based on the attempts by the attorneys general to regulate out-of-state speech, that the claim that SEC reporting requirements preempted investigation of Exxon’s reserves and asset impairments was timely, and that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar its state law claims. 12/21/2017 Brief Download Supplemental memorandum of law filed by Attorney General Healey in support of renewed motion to dismiss. The Massachusetts attorney general’s supplemental memorandum of law argued that none of Exxon’s claims were plausible or legally cognizable. The attorney general argued that Exxon’s “bald, baseless” allegations that the investigation was undertaken “out of personal animus and in bad faith” to chill political speech did not meet pleading standards and could not sustain claims of conspiracy or abuse of process, or of violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Massachusetts attorney general further argued that Exxon’s preemption, dormant Commerce Clause, and other state claims failed as a matter of law. 12/21/2017 Brief Download Memorandum of law filed by New York attorney general in further support of motion to dismiss. Parties Briefed Whether Exxon Stated Viable Claims Challenging Massachusetts and New York Climate Change Investigations. On December 21, 2017, the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general filed supplemental memoranda of law arguing that the federal district court for the Southern District of New York should dismiss Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) lawsuit seeking to block their investigations of Exxon’s climate change-related disclosures for failure to state a claim. The attorneys general previously filed motions to dismiss based on the absence of a ripe injury or the Colorado River abstention doctrine. The Massachusetts attorney general also argued that a Massachusetts state court decision precluded Exxon’s claims and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. At a hearing on November 30, 2017, the district court requested that the attorneys general update their briefing on dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (previously brief in Texas federal court) to reference Second Circuit law. In its supplemental filing, the New York attorney general argued that Exxon’s claim that the investigation was an attempt to “suppress Exxon’s corporate viewpoint on climate change, in violation of the First Amendment,” was not plausible. The New York attorney general also argued that Exxon’s claims that the attorney general’s subpoena called for an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and violated the dormant Commerce Clause were without merit. In addition, the attorney general contended that Exxon’s allegations of “political bias” did not support a procedural due process claim, that Exxon’s claim that a Securities and Exchange Commission rule preempted the investigation was premature, and that the court was without jurisdiction to hear state law claims. 08/03/2017 Letter Download Letter submitted by Exxon in response to Attorney General Healey's August 1, 2017 letter. 08/01/2017 Letter Download Letter filed by Massachusetts attorney general. In a letter to the court, the Massachusetts attorney general's office contended that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's taking Exxon's appeal of the trial court's order requiring it to comply with the civil investigative demand provided additional support for abstention by the federal court. 06/30/2017 Reply Download Reply filed by Massachusetts attorney general in support of motion to dismiss. Briefing Completed on Motions by Attorneys General to Dismiss Exxon Federal Lawsuit. Briefing was completed for the motions by the Massachusetts and New York attorneys general to dismiss Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) action in New York federal court to block the states’ investigation of its climate change-related disclosures. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey argued in her reply that a Massachusetts Superior Court order requiring Exxon to comply with her office’s Civil Investigative Demand precluded Exxon’s federal court action. Healey also argued that Exxon’s opportunities to present its case in state court made its federal claims unripe and that the federal court should abstain on Colorado River abstention grounds. 06/30/2017 Reply Download Reply filed by New York attorney general in support of motion to dismiss. In his reply in support of the motion to dismiss, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman asserted that Exxon’s federal claims were not ripe and that the Colorado River abstention doctrine compelled dismissal of “this duplicative and wasteful federal action.” Schneiderman said Exxon’s representations in New York state court that it had fully and voluntarily complied with the attorney general’s subpoena “fatally undermine[d]” any claim of ripe injury. Schneiderman also said “the only conceivable effect of prospective federal relief” would be to interfere with the attorney general’s inquiry into Exxon’s alleged withholding or spoliation of evidence. 06/23/2017 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by states in opposition to motions to dismiss. 06/16/2017 Opposition Download Opposition to motions to dismiss filed. Exxon Said Federal Court Should Not Dismiss Its Constitutional Claims Against Attorneys General. Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) argued to the federal district court for the Southern District of New York that its lawsuit against the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts to bar their investigations into Exxon’s climate change-related disclosures should not be dismissed. Exxon argued that its constitutional claims were ripe, and that the “exceptionally narrow” Colorado River abstention doctrine was not justified because there was no pending state court proceeding that could result in comprehensive disposition of the litigation. Exxon also said the “narrow” decision in a pending Massachusetts state court action did not preclude its federal claims and that Massachusetts Attorney General Healey was subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Exxon said dismissal would “set a precedent with nationwide consequences” by “granting state officials license to harass perceived political opponents unimpeded by review in federal courts.” 05/19/2017 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed by New York attorney general. New York and Massachusetts Attorneys General Asked Federal Court to Dismiss Exxon Action. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey asked the federal district court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) action seeking to block their investigations into Exxon’s climate change-related disclosures. Schneiderman’s motion to dismiss relied on the absence of ripe claims and the Colorado River abstention doctrine. Schneiderman contended that there was no ripe injury because his office’s subpoena was not self-executing and Exxon had purported to have voluntarily complied with the subpoena. He also argued that the federal court should defer to the parallel state proceeding rather than allow Exxon to assert some objections to the investigation in federal court and others in state court. 05/19/2017 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed by Massachusetts attorney general. In her motion to dismiss the action, Healey argued that a January 2017 decision in her favor by the Massachusetts Superior Court precluded Exxon from litigating its claims in federal court; that abstention was warranted under the Colorado River doctrine; and that Exxon’s claims were not ripe because Exxon had—and was pursuing—an avenue for relief in state court. Healey also said that the New York federal court did not have personal jurisdiction over her. 04/24/2017 Order Download Order issued continuing stay of discovery and setting schedule for motions to dismiss. New York Federal Court Declined to Reopen Jurisdictional Discovery in Exxon’s Action Against Attorneys General; Schedule Set for Renewed Motions to Dismiss. After the transfer of Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) lawsuit seeking to block investigations by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general from Texas federal court to the federal district court for the Southern District of New York, the New York court declined to reopen jurisdictional discovery into the attorneys general’s motivations for commencing the investigations. The court also ordered the dismissal without prejudice of the attorneys’ general pending motions to dismiss and set a schedule for renewal of the motions. Briefing on the motions was to be completed by June 30, 2017. The order authorized the attorneys general to seek dismissal on the grounds of personal jurisdiction, ripeness, abstention pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine (which may apply where there are concurrent federal and state lawsuits pending), and collateral estoppel and res judicata. The court did not authorize the defendants to seek dismissal based on Younger abstention—the abstention doctrine on which the attorneys general primarily had relied in their motions before the Texas federal court. (Younger abstention applies when ongoing state judicial proceedings implicate important state interests and provide adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges.) Expressing concern that the attorneys general had commenced their investigations in bad faith, the Texas federal court had ordered discovery into the motivations of the attorneys general to determine whether the “bad faith” exception to Younger abstention applied. The New York court’s order followed a status conference held on April 21, at which the judge reportedly stated that she had a “different view” of the case than the Texas judge. 04/20/2017 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by states in support of plaintiff's request to lift the stay of discover and in opposition to defendants' requests for dismissal. One day before a status conference, the attorneys general from Texas and 10 other states sought permission to file an amicus brief in support of Exxon. The 11 attorneys general said that the Massachusetts and New York investigations were “an attempt to establish and enforce a singular climate change viewpoint despite the fact that climate change is the subject of an ongoing international debate and far from settled” and that they would provide the court with a different perspective than the defendants “on the nature of the power being employed, the correct use of [civil investigative demands] and subpoenas, and where the boundaries of government power end and the protections of the First Amendment begin.” In their proposed brief, the 11 attorneys general argued that the Massachusetts and New York attorneys general were targeting critics and abusing their power, and argued that the politicized investigations would undermine public confidence. Echoing the concerns raised by the Texas federal district court, the 11 attorneys general argued that abstention under the Younger doctrine was not warranted because the defendants had commenced their investigations in bad faith. 04/20/2017 Amicus Motion Download Brief filed by states in support of opposed motion for leave to file brief as amici curiae in support of plaintiff. 04/12/2017 Letter Download Joint status letter submitted. Prior to a status conference on April 21, 2017, the parties submitted a joint letter at the direction of the court in which Exxon proposed that jurisdictional discovery continue and the attorneys general requested that their motions to dismiss be decided after rebriefing under Second Circuit law. The attorneys general asserted that developments in the ongoing state court proceedings made Younger abstention particularly appropriate. 03/30/2017 Order Download Order issued scheduling status conference and directing parties to submit a joint preconference letter. -
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Schneiderman
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/29/2017 Order Download Order issued transferring action. Texas Federal Court Transferred Exxon Lawsuit Against Attorneys General to New York Federal Court, Expressed Concerns Regarding Prosecutors’ Motivations. The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas transferred Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) lawsuit challenging climate change investigations by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general to the Southern District of New York. The Texas federal court said that the Southern District of New York was the proper venue because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Exxon’s claims occurred in New York City at the AGs United for Clean Power press conference on March 29, 2016. The Texas federal court continued to express concerns about the motives of the attorneys general for commencing their investigations, citing evidence offered by Exxon that the attorneys general acted to further their own political goals in conjunction with the 2016 national election. The court also asked whether the reluctance of the attorneys general to disclose information shared at the March 2016 meeting and information shared after state attorneys general entered into a Climate Change Coalition Common Interest Agreement suggested the attorneys general were “trying to hide something from the public.” The court also noted Exxon’s assertions that the New York attorney general’s investigation had shifted in focus from focusing on historic climate change research to Exxon’s disclosures regarding oil and gas reserves and assets, which Exxon said indicated that the attorney general was “searching for a way to have leverage over Exxon in the public policy debate about climate change.” The court indicated that if the attorney general was “genuinely concerned about seeking protection for New York’s citizens for Exxon’s possible securities fraud regarding its oil and gas reserves and assets,” then he could seek protection for them in a securities class action, Ramirez v. Exxon Mobil Corp., currently pending before the court. 02/01/2017 Brief Download Brief submitted by Exxon in support of court's personal jurisdiction over defendants. 02/01/2017 Brief Download Brief submitted by Attorney General Healey in support of dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. 02/01/2017 Brief Download Memorandum of law submitted by New York attorney general in support of dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. 01/06/2017 Reply Download Reply memorandum filed by New York Attorney General in support of motion to dismiss. 01/03/2017 Reply Download Healey submitted reply in support of motion to dismiss first amended complaint. 12/19/2016 Opposition Download Exxon filed opposition to Healey motion to dismiss first amended complaint. 12/15/2016 Order Download Order issued staying discovery. Texas Federal Court Suspended Discovery in Exxon’s Action Against Attorneys General. On December 15, the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas stayed all discovery pending further order of the court in Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) lawsuit seeking to bar ongoing climate change-related investigations by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York. 12/15/2016 Order Download Order issued extending deadline for submitting briefs on personal jurisdiction to February 1, 2017. 12/12/2016 Order Download Order issued requiring submission of briefs on whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the attorneys general by January 4, 2017. 12/12/2016 Order Download Order issued cancelling deposition of Attorney General Healey. 12/09/2016 Motion Download Memorandum of law filed by 350.org in support of motion to quash non-party subpoena issued by Exxon Mobil Corporation. 12/09/2016 Order Download Order issued denying Schneiderman motion to quash discovery and Healey motion for stay pending appellate review. 12/07/2016 Opposition Download Exxon submitted opposition to Schneiderman motion to quash discovery requests. In opposing the motion to quash, Exxon characterized its efforts as a “a set of narrowly tailored party discovery requests—including requests for production, requests for admission, interrogatories, and notices of deposition.” 12/07/2016 Opposition Download Exxon filed opposition to Healey motion for stay pending appellate review. 12/06/2016 Motion Download Healey filed motion for stay pending appellate review. 12/05/2016 Motion Download Schneiderman filed motion to quash discovery. The New York attorney general filed a motion to quash discovery, calling Exxon’s efforts to obtain internal information about New York’s ongoing state investigation “highly improper.” 12/05/2016 Motion to Dismiss Download Schneiderman filed motion to dismiss first amended complaint. The New York attorney general filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that the court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction, that venue was improper, that action was not ripe, and that Exxon did not have a plausible claim for relief. 12/05/2016 Order Download Order issued denying Healey motions to reconsider jurisdictional discovery order and to vacate and reconsider November 17 order, stay discovery, and enter a protective order. 11/29/2016 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Exxon to Healey's motion to vacate order for her deposition, to stay discovery, and for protective order. Exxon opposed Healey’s motion to vacate the deposition and discovery orders, arguing that the motion was improper and that the court had acted within its discretion to order jurisdictional discovery and Healey’s deposition. 11/28/2016 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss first amended complaint filed by Healey. 11/26/2016 Motion Download Motion filed by Healey to vacate order for her deposition, to stay discovery, and for protective order. On November 26, Healey filed a motion to vacate both the court’s deposition order and an earlier jurisdictional discovery order in which the court expressed concern that Healey had commenced the Massachusetts investigation in “bad faith,” based in part on Healey’s participation in a press conference with other state attorneys general and climate change advocates. Healey also asked the court to stay discovery until it had ruled on Healey’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was filed on November 28, and to issue a protective order prohibiting Exxon from taking her deposition. Healey also said the court should defer all activity in the case while a Massachusetts Superior Court considered Exxon’s motion to set aside the civil investigative demand (CID). Healey argued that the court had abused its discretion by ordering discovery and issuing the deposition order where the court lacked personal jurisdiction, the action was unripe, and venue was improper. In addition, Healey argued that circumstances did not warrant deposition of a top executive department official or discovery in a collateral action challenging a lawful CID, and that the court’s concerns regarding Healey’s “bad faith” in commencing the Exxon climate change investigation would not justify discovery because the concerns would not trigger the bad faith exception to abstention under the Younger doctrine. Healey also argued that it was common for state attorneys general to coordinate and to make public statements regarding coordinated investigations. 11/23/2016 Letter Download Attorneys for 350.org submitted letter to Exxon attorneys objecting to subpoena. Outside of court, the organization 350.org sent a letter to Exxon’s attorneys objecting to a subpoena it had received seeking, among other things, communications between 350.org and state attorneys general and other climate activists. 11/17/2016 Order Download Order issued requiring Healey to respond to written discovery and to appear for deposition and advising Schneiderman to be available for deposition. Texas Federal Court Ordered Massachusetts Attorney General to Appear in Texas for Deposition. On November 17, 2016, the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas ordered Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to appear for a deposition in Texas on December 13 in Exxon Mobil Corporation’s action against Healey and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman challenging the states’ climate change investigations. The court’s deposition order also advised that Schneiderman should be available for deposition in Texas on December 13 but said that it would wait to enter an order until after Schneiderman filed an answer to the first amended complaint. 11/10/2016 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. 11/10/2016 Order Download Order issued granting Exxon's motion for leave to file first amended complaint. Over Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s objections, the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas granted Exxon Mobil Corporation's motion for leave to add New York Attorney General Schneiderman as a defendant and to add new claims. 11/09/2016 Reply Download Reply filed by Exxon in support of motion for leave to file first amended complaint. 11/09/2016 Subpoena Download Subpoena issued by Exxon to Union of Concerned Scientists. Exxon issued a subpoena to Union of Concerned Scientists, seeking documents and other materials related to communications with state attorneys general, including materials related to the press conference involving the state attorneys general, and certain materials related to other events regarding climate change litigation against fossil fuel companies, to political fundraising, and to Exxon and other fossil fuel companies. 11/07/2016 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Healey to Exxon's motion for leave to file first amended complaint. 10/31/2016 Reply Download Reply filed by Healey in response to Exxon's opposition to her motion to reconsider jurisdictional discovery order. 10/25/2016 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed. A Texas resident (who also filed a lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against a number of environmental organizations) sought to intervene in Exxon Mobil Corporation’s lawsuit against the Massachusetts attorney general. The plaintiff asserted in his motion to intervene that Exxon could not adequately represent his interests, citing the “pressure” exerted on Exxon by “climate alarmist politicians at home and abroad.” 10/21/2016 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Healey to Exxon Mobil Corp.'s motion to expedite. After Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) filed a motion requesting that the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas expedite consideration of Exxon's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add the New York attorney general as a defendant and to add new claims, the Massachusetts attorney general asked the court to deny the request. The Massachusetts attorney general argued that the “actual but unstated reason” for the “rush” to add the New York attorney general was to avoid the jurisdiction of the New York Supreme Court, which was then considering the New York attorney general’s motion to compel Exxon and its accountant to respond to a subpoena. 10/20/2016 Motion Download Motion filed by Healey for reconsideration of jurisdictional discovery order. Attorney General Healey asked the court to reconsider its jurisdictional discovery order, arguing that the action should be dismissed based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. Healey also argued that venue was improper, and that “ample substantive evidence” was already in the record regarding the decision to issue the civil investigative demand. 10/19/2016 Motion Download Motion filed by Exxon Mobil Corp. to expedite briefing and consideration of motion for leave to amend. 10/17/2016 Motion Download Motion for leave to filed first amended complaint filed. Exxon Sought to Block New York Attorney General Investigation in Texas Federal Court. Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) filed a motion for leave to add the Attorney General of New York as a defendant in the action in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas in which Exxon seeks to bar enforcement of a civil investigative demand issued by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Exxon indicated that the New York attorney general’s “sweeping subpoena” issued in November 2015 seeking 40 years of climate change-related documents was issued in furtherance of the illegal objective of depriving Exxon of its constitutional rights. (Exxon’s filings included the subpoena itself, which had not previously been publicly available.) Exxon said that it initially cooperated with the New York attorney general’s investigation believing it would be “fair and impartial” but that subsequent events—including a March 2016 press conference at which state attorneys general pledged to use their enforcement powers to address climate change and the disclosure of a common interest agreement between state attorneys general—had revealed the political and “pretextual nature” of the investigation. In addition to adding the New York attorney general as a defendant, Exxon also sought leave to add claims of federal preemption and for conspiracy to deprive Exxon of its constitutional rights. In support of the preemption claim, Exxon contended that the attempt by the Massachusetts and New York attorneys general to impose liability on Exxon for failing to take into account future climate change regulation was at odds with Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations for incorporating assumptions about future events. 10/13/2016 Order Download Jurisdictional discovery order issued. Texas Federal Court Ordered Jurisdictional Discovery in Exxon Case Against Massachusetts Attorney General, Citing Concern That State’s Investigation Was Undertaken in Bad Faith. The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas ordered the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery to aid the court in determining whether it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (ExxonMobil’s) action seeking to block the civil investigative demand (CID) issued by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Healey issued the CID in connection with an investigation into unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce with respect to fossil fuel products and securities. Healey argued in a motion to dismiss that Younger abstention—which is based on a “a strong federal policy against federal court interference with pending state judicial proceedings”—should apply because ExxonMobil was pursuing a parallel action in Massachusetts state court to challenge the CID. The Texas federal court said that ExxonMobil’s allegations raised concerns that Healey had issued the CID in bad faith, which would preclude Younger abstention. The court said that Healey’s actions and remarks leading up to issuance of the CID caused the court concern and presented the question of whether Healey “issued the CID with bias or prejudgment about what the investigation of Exxon would discover.” The court cited Healey’s participation in the AGs United for Clean Power Press Conference in March 2016 and her attendance at a pre-press conference closed-door meeting with a climate change activist and a lawyer with a “well-known global warming litigation practice.” The court also cited “anticipatory” remarks made by Healey about the ExxonMobil investigation. 09/22/2016 Amicus Brief Download Parties that interceded in the lawsuit on ExxonMobil’s behalf included 11 states that expressed concern regarding unconstitutional use of investigative powers by state attorneys general, and a Massachusetts doctor to whom the attorney general had submitted a CID in an unrelated Medicaid fraud investigation. 09/22/2016 Order Download Order issued appointing mediator and ordering parties to mediate. Texas Federal Court Ordered Mediation in ExxonMobil’s Suit Against Massachusetts Attorney General. In Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (ExxonMobil’s) action challenging a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas appointed a mediator and ordered Exxon Mobil Corporation and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to mediate within 16 days of the court’s order (by October 8). ExxonMobil’s lawsuit alleged that the CID—which sought up to 40 years of ExxonMobil records related to climate change—violated constitutional and common law rights. The court’s mediation order followed a hearing at which the judge encouraged the parties to attempt to resolve their dispute out of court. 09/16/2016 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion to dismiss. In the reply in support of her motion to dismiss ExxonMobil's action, Attorney General Healey stated that she was not conceding the sufficiency of ExxonMobil’s claims and argued that ExxonMobil had misapplied precedents regarding personal jurisdiction. The attorney general reiterated that the court should abstain because ExxonMobil could pursue—and was pursuing—relief in Massachusetts state court. The attorney general also reiterated that Texas was not the proper venue. 09/08/2016 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief submitted by states in support of ExxonMobil. 09/08/2016 Amicus Motion Download Brief filed in support of states' motion for leave to participate as amici curiae in support of ExxonMobil. 09/08/2016 Opposition Download Opposition filed to motion to dismiss. ExxonMobil filed its opposition to the attorney general’s motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the court had personal jurisdiction over the attorney general and that abstention would not be appropriate. ExxonMobil also said that the constitutional claims were ripe for adjudication and that the venue was proper, and asserted that the attorney general had not contested the adequacy of the complaint’s allegations. 08/24/2016 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion for preliminary injunction. In reply to the Massachusetts Attorney General's opposition to its motion for preliminary injunction, ExxonMobil reiterated its arguments that the attorney general's civil investigative demand violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as the dormant Commerce Clause, and argued that a violation of constitutional rights constituted irreparable harm and that the public had an interest in ensuring that law enforcement powers were executed constitutionally. 08/17/2016 Amicus Brief Download Memorandum of law filed by amici curiae parties in support of defendant. Eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands submitted an amicus curiae brief supporting the Massachusetts Attorney General. They argued that Exxon could not ask a federal court to impede a state attorney general’s investigation where a process for challenging the subpoena was available in state court. 08/08/2016 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed. Massachusetts Attorney General Asked Texas Federal Court to Dismiss ExxonMobil Challenge to Civil Investigative Demand. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a motion to dismiss Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (ExxonMobil’s) lawsuit against her in a Texas federal court. Healey argued that the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas was not the proper forum for ExxonMobil’s action, which sought to bar enforcement of a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by Healey in connection with her office’s investigation into unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce with respect to fossil fuel products and securities. Healey said the federal court did not have personal jurisdiction over her, that abstention was warranted, that the action was unripe, and that the venue was improper. 08/08/2016 Opposition Download Opposition to motion for preliminary injunction filed. Massachusetts Attorney General Healey also opposed ExxonMobil’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that ExxonMobil had not demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm or that it was substantially likely to prevail on its constitutional claims. Healey also argued that a preliminary injunction would undermine Massachusetts’ investigatory powers and harm the state’s consumers and investors and the public interest. 06/30/2016 Order Download Order issued granting joint motion. 06/22/2016 Motion Download Joint motion filed for enlargement of defendant's time to respond. 06/15/2016 Complaint Download Complaint filed. ExxonMobil Asked Texas Federal Court to Block Civil Investigative Demand from Massachusetts Attorney General. ExxonMobil filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas against the Massachusetts Attorney General, asking the court to bar enforcement of a civil investigative demand (CID) issued to ExxonMobil in April 2016 and to declare that the CID violated ExxonMobil’s rights under federal and state law. ExxonMobil also moved for a preliminary injunction in the Texas federal court, and said that it would file a protective motion in Massachusetts state court to argue that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. ExxonMobil said it would lodge its objections to the CID in state court but would ask the Massachusetts court to stay its consideration of the objections because the Texas federal court should resolve the issue of the CID’s enforceability in the first instance. ExxonMobil’s complaint in the Texas federal court said that the CID indicated that ExxonMobil was the subject of an investigation under a Massachusetts statute concerning unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. ExxonMobil argued that it could not have violated the statute because it had not sold fossil fuel products, operated retail stores, or sold any form of equity to the general public in Massachusetts in the past five years. ExxonMobil alleged that the CID violated its rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and constituted an abuse of process under common law. At the end of June, the Texas federal court granted the parties’ joint motion to enlarge the time period for the Massachusetts Attorney General to respond to the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction “[i]n light of the complex nature of the case and the extensive documents filed by ExxonMobil.” 06/15/2016 Motion Download Motion for preliminary injunction filed. 04/19/2016 Subpoena Download Civil investigative demand issued. -
In re Healey
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/09/2016 Motion Download Emergency motion for stay pending mandamus filed. 12/09/2016 Petition Download Petition for writ of mandamus filed by Healey. On December 9, the Massachusetts attorney general asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of discovery pending the Fifth Circuit’s disposition of the attorney general’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s jurisdictional discovery orders, in which the district court raised concerns regarding whether the attorney general commenced her investigation of Exxon in good faith. The Massachusetts attorney general filed the petition for writ of mandamus after the district court denied her motion for reconsideration of the jurisdictional discovery order and her request for stay of discovery and vacatur and reconsideration of the order requiring her to appear for the deposition. 12/09/2016 Response Download Response filed by Exxon to emergency motion for stay.