1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,520
Speaker 1: A federal judge in Texas is ordering the Massachusetts Attorney

2
00:00:03,560 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: General to be questioned under oath by Exn's lawyers in

3
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:12,039
Speaker 1: Dallas over her office's investigation into whether Exon misled investors

4
00:00:12,080 --> 00:00:16,040
Speaker 1: about the financial impact of climate change and a G. Moura.

5
00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:19,680
Speaker 1: Healey is fighting the summons in court papers. Healy said

6
00:00:19,720 --> 00:00:23,640
Speaker 1: Federal Judge Edkincaid's order allowing the target of a state

7
00:00:23,720 --> 00:00:27,960
Speaker 1: probe to investigate the investigator is an abuse of discretion.

8
00:00:28,360 --> 00:00:31,360
Speaker 1: EXN is trying to stop Healy and other ages, such

9
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:35,000
Speaker 1: as New York's Eric Schneiderman, from suing by suing in

10
00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:38,880
Speaker 1: federal court in its home state, claiming the investigations are

11
00:00:39,040 --> 00:00:43,240
Speaker 1: politically motivated. My guest is from her federal and state prosecutor,

12
00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:47,120
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Kramer. He's the managing director of Berkeley Research Group.

13
00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:51,200
Speaker 1: Jeff the mass a g. Says the office hasn't even

14
00:00:51,240 --> 00:00:55,480
Speaker 1: gotten one document from x On yet. How unusual is

15
00:00:55,520 --> 00:00:58,600
Speaker 1: this judge's order, which also, by the way, orders her

16
00:00:58,640 --> 00:01:04,440
Speaker 1: to Dallas when Exxon wanted to take her deposition in Massachusetts. Uh, yeah,

17
00:01:04,720 --> 00:01:07,400
Speaker 1: it is. It is very strange. I've never seen anything

18
00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:11,039
Speaker 1: like this, and it's it's odd in the in the

19
00:01:11,080 --> 00:01:13,920
Speaker 1: instant matter. UM, but I think it had could have

20
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:18,200
Speaker 1: at least far reaching consequences if you take any investigation

21
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:20,959
Speaker 1: doesn't to be corporate, it could be criminal in nature

22
00:01:21,000 --> 00:01:25,360
Speaker 1: and could then impact couldn't impact US attorneys or state prosecutors.

23
00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:30,600
Speaker 1: This is a very odd decision. Judge Kincaid expressed concern

24
00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:35,360
Speaker 1: that Healy's office was investigating XN in bad faith because

25
00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:38,759
Speaker 1: of meeting she had with an environmental activists and other

26
00:01:38,800 --> 00:01:42,720
Speaker 1: ages the day before New York announced a similar investigation.

27
00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:46,880
Speaker 1: Is that enough to make out cause of concern of

28
00:01:46,959 --> 00:01:49,800
Speaker 1: bad faith? You know? I don't. I don't think so,

29
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:52,480
Speaker 1: and I read it a few times. On its face,

30
00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:56,520
Speaker 1: it seems, you know, fairly innocuous and really not unusual

31
00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:00,720
Speaker 1: for a state attorney general. Maybe not necess of other prosecutors,

32
00:02:00,760 --> 00:02:04,440
Speaker 1: but a state attorney general to meet with different groups

33
00:02:05,040 --> 00:02:08,040
Speaker 1: um as it decides whether or not to pursue an investigation.

34
00:02:08,120 --> 00:02:11,000
Speaker 1: The judge obviously found the timing relevant it was the

35
00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:14,440
Speaker 1: night before New York went ahead, But in and of itself,

36
00:02:14,440 --> 00:02:16,919
Speaker 1: I don't think that's really not only not this positive

37
00:02:16,960 --> 00:02:19,280
Speaker 1: meaning it it doesn't It doesn't make the case on

38
00:02:19,360 --> 00:02:23,640
Speaker 1: its face, but really isn't that relevant and certainly is

39
00:02:23,680 --> 00:02:28,560
Speaker 1: not relevant enough to drag the Attorney General from Massachusetts

40
00:02:28,680 --> 00:02:32,280
Speaker 1: down to Texas UH to be interviewed by the subject

41
00:02:32,360 --> 00:02:37,160
Speaker 1: their investigation. So how often do you have targets of

42
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:41,799
Speaker 1: investigations trying to use the power of the federal court

43
00:02:42,040 --> 00:02:46,280
Speaker 1: in its home state to stop a state investigation that's

44
00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:51,000
Speaker 1: just under way. You know, it's almost unheard of. Um,

45
00:02:51,040 --> 00:02:53,000
Speaker 1: And maybe there's a little bit of home court advantage.

46
00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:56,240
Speaker 1: As you indicated, Exxon was even willing to say, look,

47
00:02:56,280 --> 00:02:58,840
Speaker 1: we'll come up to Boston, right, we'll do this on

48
00:02:58,919 --> 00:03:01,600
Speaker 1: the Attorney General's home turf, so we don't to impose

49
00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:03,839
Speaker 1: too much. But they're just like, you know, you can,

50
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:06,639
Speaker 1: you can do it here, really going farther than even

51
00:03:06,639 --> 00:03:09,359
Speaker 1: Exon had the nerve to ask. So maybe it is

52
00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:12,080
Speaker 1: a little bit of home court advantage. Certainly, the oil

53
00:03:12,120 --> 00:03:15,880
Speaker 1: companies in Texas UH certainly carry a lot of weight.

54
00:03:16,280 --> 00:03:18,880
Speaker 1: You think that would be diffused once you get to

55
00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:21,440
Speaker 1: the federal system. On like a state judge who might

56
00:03:21,480 --> 00:03:24,960
Speaker 1: be elected or appointed by state officials, these are federal judges,

57
00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:29,600
Speaker 1: so usually home court advantage doesn't carry it. But here,

58
00:03:29,639 --> 00:03:32,360
Speaker 1: and again I think the concern is greater. Can you

59
00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:38,960
Speaker 1: now have uh, anyone who's being investigated public corruption, drugs, guns, anything,

60
00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:42,120
Speaker 1: any criminal matter by a U. S attorney Because now

61
00:03:42,160 --> 00:03:44,839
Speaker 1: we've got a federal judge deciding this okay. They then

62
00:03:45,040 --> 00:03:49,400
Speaker 1: decide that prosecutors line prosecutors get called into be interviewed

63
00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:51,880
Speaker 1: by the judge. Their emails can then be looked at

64
00:03:51,880 --> 00:03:54,280
Speaker 1: in discovery. I mean, this is a this is an

65
00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 1: odd one and could have some implications. Let's take a

66
00:03:57,200 --> 00:04:01,880
Speaker 1: look at some of the examples of the questions or interrogatories.

67
00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:05,480
Speaker 1: Number twenty four asked Attorney General Heally, and this is

68
00:04:05,520 --> 00:04:09,640
Speaker 1: from xns UM some of the discovery. What X would

69
00:04:09,720 --> 00:04:14,960
Speaker 1: ask Attorney General Heally to quote, state, identify and describe

70
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:18,600
Speaker 1: the basis for your belief that investigating a single company

71
00:04:18,600 --> 00:04:22,159
Speaker 1: will help combat or limit climate change? What kind of

72
00:04:22,160 --> 00:04:26,440
Speaker 1: a depth position is that? I'm laughing as you're I'm

73
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:29,600
Speaker 1: laughing as you read it. Obviously, UM, you know, how

74
00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:31,479
Speaker 1: can you how can any want to answer that? Um?

75
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:34,880
Speaker 1: It's like, basically, you know, how will this investigation, you know,

76
00:04:34,920 --> 00:04:38,280
Speaker 1: stop climate change? Answers It won't, But that doesn't mean

77
00:04:38,279 --> 00:04:41,839
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be held culpable arguably, um, if you disseminated

78
00:04:41,839 --> 00:04:45,960
Speaker 1: false information and that had an impact upon Massachusetts citizens

79
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:50,120
Speaker 1: and investors, which is the purview of the Massachusetts Attorney General. UM.

80
00:04:50,200 --> 00:04:51,560
Speaker 1: And as I said, you know, it's kind of a

81
00:04:52,080 --> 00:04:55,240
Speaker 1: loaded question, impossible to answer. And some of those other

82
00:04:55,240 --> 00:04:59,320
Speaker 1: interrogatories really require the attorney general, if she's gonna sit

83
00:04:59,320 --> 00:05:02,159
Speaker 1: there and answer these questions, to reveal everything they know.

84
00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:04,159
Speaker 1: Now maybe have to give up sources, they have to

85
00:05:04,160 --> 00:05:07,880
Speaker 1: give up other information. You see these arguments being made

86
00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:11,440
Speaker 1: kind of perfunctorily, where defendants will say there's a witch

87
00:05:11,480 --> 00:05:13,760
Speaker 1: hunt right there going after me because I'm a Democrat

88
00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:16,359
Speaker 1: or a Republican or or whatever it might be in

89
00:05:16,400 --> 00:05:20,080
Speaker 1: different in different contexts, And that doesn't mean it's it's

90
00:05:20,240 --> 00:05:22,159
Speaker 1: there's not something to that, and you can bring it

91
00:05:22,279 --> 00:05:25,400
Speaker 1: forth before a judge federal or state, and they can

92
00:05:25,440 --> 00:05:26,880
Speaker 1: take a look at it to see if there's any

93
00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:30,000
Speaker 1: evidence on his face. But here we're really going from

94
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 1: zero to sixty interviewing interrogatories. You know, I think you

95
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:36,920
Speaker 1: need to let the investigation play out and then see

96
00:05:36,960 --> 00:05:40,080
Speaker 1: what happens. But Exon Mobile seems to be taking a

97
00:05:40,200 --> 00:05:41,920
Speaker 1: nice shot across the bow and is going to give

98
00:05:41,920 --> 00:05:44,520
Speaker 1: a lot of chill to a lot of attorney generals.

99
00:05:44,520 --> 00:05:49,560
Speaker 1: So I also wonder how often you even get to interrogation.

100
00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:54,000
Speaker 1: It sounds like in a derogation, but I often wonder

101
00:05:54,040 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: how often you get to depose an attorney general about

102
00:05:57,680 --> 00:06:01,040
Speaker 1: an investigation of the office. Yeah. Never, And you're right,

103
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: it is it is ironic, right, I mean, the roles

104
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:07,400
Speaker 1: are being reversed here. Um. It never happens. And there's

105
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:10,599
Speaker 1: nothing magical unless or about the attorneys general because again

106
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:12,840
Speaker 1: we have a federal court, can then U S attorneys

107
00:06:12,880 --> 00:06:15,520
Speaker 1: Can the Attorney General of the United States now be

108
00:06:15,600 --> 00:06:20,400
Speaker 1: subject to this kind of of motion and redress? Um?

109
00:06:20,440 --> 00:06:22,640
Speaker 1: So I think the implications, if we step back for

110
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:26,800
Speaker 1: a moment, are striking, because not many attorney generals who

111
00:06:26,839 --> 00:06:29,360
Speaker 1: are elected are going to not only want to be

112
00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:32,320
Speaker 1: deposed but answer those questions. And I think was even

113
00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:35,760
Speaker 1: more chilling, um, is that then their emails could argue

114
00:06:35,880 --> 00:06:40,479
Speaker 1: the subject to discovery even before they start the investigation. Um.

115
00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:43,560
Speaker 1: And for an elected official, and they're all elected, that

116
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:47,000
Speaker 1: may warrant them maybe not pursuing what they should pursue.

117
00:06:47,320 --> 00:06:49,920
Speaker 1: And it's not just you know this industry, we can

118
00:06:49,920 --> 00:06:54,000
Speaker 1: extrapolate to the pharmaceutical industry, the national defense industry, industry

119
00:06:54,040 --> 00:06:56,160
Speaker 1: that has a lot of lawyers and can really not

120
00:06:56,320 --> 00:06:59,080
Speaker 1: roll the dice if you will on this kind of motion, Jeff,

121
00:06:59,120 --> 00:07:02,279
Speaker 1: just about thirty seconds. Is she trying to get the

122
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:04,640
Speaker 1: judge to withdraw his order or is she going to

123
00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:07,600
Speaker 1: have to take it to an appellate court. I think

124
00:07:07,600 --> 00:07:10,440
Speaker 1: the first I think could being asked the judge to reconsider.

125
00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:13,320
Speaker 1: That's usually going to fail. There's unless there's new evidence,

126
00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:14,960
Speaker 1: and there's really nothing, so that judge is not going

127
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:17,840
Speaker 1: to reconsider. You can then make a motion to the

128
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:21,640
Speaker 1: appellate court, uh for them to reverse this order. Because

129
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:25,960
Speaker 1: once the deposition is done, once the interrogatories are answered,

130
00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:29,240
Speaker 1: the damage is done. So any redress you're gonna get

131
00:07:29,280 --> 00:07:31,280
Speaker 1: at that level, I think it's gonna it's gonna be

132
00:07:31,320 --> 00:07:33,640
Speaker 1: for not. You really need to do it beforehand, so

133
00:07:33,680 --> 00:07:35,720
Speaker 1: you go to the appellate court and have a three

134
00:07:35,800 --> 00:07:37,760
Speaker 1: judge panel turns you down. Maybe you ask for an

135
00:07:37,760 --> 00:07:40,880
Speaker 1: on Bok decision. Jeff Kramer always a pleasure to have

136
00:07:40,960 --> 00:07:44,160
Speaker 1: you on Bloomberg Law. That's Jeff Kramer, the managing director

137
00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:48,360
Speaker 1: of Berkeley Research Group, coming up on Bloomberg law. The Commissioner,

138
00:07:48,400 --> 00:07:52,480
Speaker 1: France's privacy watchdog, is taking on her own government in

139
00:07:52,480 --> 00:07:54,600
Speaker 1: an effort to make sure it doesn't cross the lawn

140
00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:58,160
Speaker 1: with the personal information of its citizens by creating a

141
00:07:58,200 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 1: metadatabase of information of everyone in France. This is Bloomberg