Description: Action by ExxonMobil Corporation to set aside civil investigative demand issued by Massachusetts attorney general under consumer protection statute seeking information on Exxon's knowledge and disclosure of climate change-related risks.
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/07/2019 Order List Download Certiorari denied. U.S. Supreme Court Declined to Review Massachusetts High Court’s Decision Allowing Climate Change Investigation of Exxon. The U.S. Supreme Court denied without comment Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling that allowed the Massachusetts attorney general to proceed with a climate change-related investigation of Exxon’s marketing and sales of its products. Exxon argued that the Massachusetts court’s standard for personal jurisdiction violated due process. 12/19/2018 Reply Download Reply brief for the petitioner filed. 12/04/2018 Brief Download Brief in opposition filed. 10/29/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar in support of petitioner. Two amicus briefs were filed in support of Exxon’s petition—one by DRI–The Voice of the Defense Bar, which described itself in its brief as “an international organization of more than 22,000 attorneys involved in the defense of civil litigation,” and the other by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. 10/29/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed in support of petitioner by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and National Association of Manufacturers. 10/29/2018 Request Response to certiorari petition requested from Massachusetts attorney general. Supreme Court Requested Response from Massachusetts Attorney General to Exxon Certiorari Petition for Review of Personal Jurisdiction Issue in Climate Investigation. On October 29, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court requested a response from the Massachusetts attorney general to Exxon Mobil Corporation’s petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that permitted the attorney general to proceed with her climate change investigation of Exxon’s marketing and sales of its products. Exxon has asked the Supreme Court to consider whether Massachusetts courts’ exercise of jurisdiction over Exxon violated due process. The attorney general must file her response by November 28. 09/10/2018 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed by Exxon. Exxon Sought Supreme Court Review of Massachusetts High Court’s Finding of Personal Jurisdiction in Massachusetts Attorney General’s Climate Change Investigation. Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that permitted Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to proceed with her investigation of Exxon’s marketing and sales of fossil fuel products. Exxon asserted that the case—in which the attorney general made, according to Exxon, “sweeping investigatory requests … for decades’ worth of documents concerning petitioner’s knowledge of, and the relationship of petitioner’s products to, climate change”—involved “a breathtaking assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” Exxon argued that the Supreme Judicial Court had applied a “lax” but-for causation standard for determining whether Exxon’s contacts with the state were sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction and that this standard did not comport with due process. Exxon said the case presented “an ideal opportunity” to resolve an open question of the type of relationship that is required between a plaintiff’s claims and a defendant’s forum contacts to satisfy constitutional requirements. Exxon also said the case offered the opportunity “to address a subsidiary question that is vexing the lower courts: specifically whether an unexercised contractual power to be involved in another party’s potential contact with a forum State has any relevance to the specific-jurisdiction inquiry (and, if so, in what way).” Exxon further argued that the Massachusetts high court’s decision was difficult to reconcile with Supreme Court precedent and that the “disarray in the lower courts” provided a basis for Supreme Court review. -
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Office of the Attorney General
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/13/2018 Opinion Download Opinion issued affirming denial of Exxon's motion. Massachusetts High Court Ruled That Exxon Must Comply with Attorney General’s Climate Change Investigation. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Superior Court order denying ExxonMobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) motion to bar the Massachusetts attorney general from pursuing her investigation of whether Exxon’s marketing or sale of its fossil fuel products violated the Massachusetts consumer protection law. The Supreme Judicial Court held that Exxon was subject to personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts. The court also rejected Exxon’s argument that the civil investigative demand (CID) was “overbroad and unduly burdensome” or that it was “arbitrary and capricious” because it was issued “solely as a pretext.” In addition, the court concluded that disqualification of the attorney general’s office was not necessitated by her participation in the “AGs United for Clean Power” press conference and found that the Superior Court had not abused its discretion by denying a stay pending the resolution of Exxon’s federal lawsuit against the attorney general. The Supreme Judicial Court also affirmed the order granting the attorney general’s cross motion to compel Exxon’s compliance with the CID. 08/01/2017 Not Available Appeal transferred from Appeals Court. -
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Office of the Attorney General
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/28/2017 Order Order issued transferring case to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. -
In re Civil Investigative Demand No. 2016-EPD-36
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/24/2019 Order Exxon's emergency motion denied. The Superior Court denied an emergency motion by Exxon for an extension of time in which to initiate a meet-and-confer with the attorney general’s office prior to the filing of a civil action. Exxon reportedly argued that it had a right to confer in person and that it could not do so until November due to its attorneys’ involvement in the ongoing trial in the New York attorney general’s fraud action against Exxon. 10/17/2019 Memorandum Download Memorandum filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation in support of its emergency motion to extend the time to meet and confer with the attorney general under G.L. c. 93A, § 4. 01/11/2017 Order Download Order issued on emergency motion of ExxonMobil Corporation to set aside or modify the CID or issue a protective order and Commonwealth's cross-motion to compel ExxonMobil Corporation to comply with CID. Massachusetts State Court Said Exxon Must Comply with Attorney General’s Civil Investigative Demand Seeking Climate Change Information. A Massachusetts Superior Court denied ExxonMobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) motion to set aside a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by the Massachusetts attorney general seeking information on Exxon’s study of carbon dioxide emissions and their effect on climate change. The court also denied Exxon’s request that it stay its adjudication of the motion pending the resolution of the federal lawsuit brought by Exxon in Texas against the attorney general in which Exxon sought to bar enforcement of the CID. The Superior Court said that Massachusetts state courts would be more familiar with the state consumer protection act pursuant to which the CID was issued and further noted that the statute directed challenges to CID be brought in state court. The court concluded that it had personal jurisdiction over Exxon, finding that Exxon’s due process rights were not offended given its establishment of “minimum contacts” in Massachusetts. The court also said that the state consumer protection act would provide “hollow protection against non-resident defendants” if the court did not assert jurisdiction. The court also found that Exxon had not met its burden of showing that the attorney general acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the CID, indicating her concerns regarding potential misrepresentations to Massachusetts consumers justified the CID. The court was not swayed by Exxon’s argument that it was being subjected to viewpoint discrimination for its views on global warming. The court also rejected Exxon’s arguments that the CID lacked the requisite specificity and was unreasonably burdensome. In addition, the court denied Exxon’s request for disqualification of the attorney general and appointment of an independent investigator. The court noted that the attorney general’s public remarks at a March 2016 press conference with other attorneys general did not evidence actionable bias and that her comments did nothing more than explain her reasons for the investigation to the consumers she represents. The court granted the attorney general’s request to compel Exxon to respond to the CID. 06/16/2016 Petition Download Petition filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation to set aside or modify civil investigative demand or issue a protective order. -
Massachusetts Attorney General Civil Investigative Demand to Exxon
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/17/2017 Letter Download Letter sent to Exxon counsel. In a letter to Exxon’s counsel in connection with her office’s climate change investigation, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey expressed concerns regarding the Wayne Tracker email account revealed in the New York attorney general's investigation. 04/19/2016 Not Available Download Civil investigative demand issued to Exxon.