RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Ebbert writes: "Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey won a major legal showdown against Exxon Mobil on Wednesday, when a judge ruled that the company must turn over 40 years of documents on climate change."

Maura Healey is among state attorneys general who are investigating Exxon Mobil and climate change. (photo: The Boston Globe)
Maura Healey is among state attorneys general who are investigating Exxon Mobil and climate change. (photo: The Boston Globe)

Massachusetts Attorney General Healey Wins Showdown With Exxon Mobil

By Stephanie Ebbert, The Boston Globe

12 January 17


assachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey won a major legal showdown against Exxon Mobil on Wednesday, when a judge ruled that the company must turn over 40 years of documents on climate change.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Heidi E. Brieger denied the company an emergency motion or a protective order that would have blocked Healey’s demand for the company’s internal research on global warming.

The decision came on the same day Exxon Mobil’s former CEO Rex Tillerson was grilled by the Senate over his nomination to become President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of state and refused to answer questions about Exxon’s understanding of climate change.

The ruling is a major victory for Healey, who, along with the attorney general of New York, pursued probes into Exxon Mobil after reports published in 2015 suggested the company had encouraged climate-change confusion for years after its own scientists established the risks.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Healey said the Massachusetts court had affirmed her authority to investigate potential fraud and she blasted Exxon for its aggressive pushback.

“Exxon must now end its obstructive tactics and come clean about whether it misled Massachusetts consumers and investors about what it knew about climate change, its causes and effects,” she said.

An Exxon spokesman said the company is reviewing the decision.

Healey still faces a complaint from Exxon Mobil in a federal court in Texas, where the company is based. The judge in that case had seemed inclined to favor Exxon, originally demanding that both attorneys general appear in Texas to defend their jurisdiction. But he has postponed hearings and depositions while awaiting additional briefs due Feb. 1.

In the Massachusetts decision issued Wednesday, Brieger refused to grant Exxon Mobil a stay pending resolution of the case in Texas, determining the matter should be heard in Massachusetts, because it involves the Massachusetts consumer protection statute and Massachusetts case law arising under it, “about which the Massachusetts Superior Court is certainly more familiar than would be a federal court in Texas.”

After Healey announced her probe, Exxon Mobil sued Healey in two separate courts claiming she lacked jurisdiction to investigate, her demand was unreasonable, and her effort, politically motivated. As evidence, Exxon cited her comments at a March 2016 press conference as prejudicial.

Specifically, she had said: “Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be, held accountable. . . . We can all see today the troubling disconnect between what Exxon knew, what industry folks knew, and what the company and industry chose to share with investors and with the American public.”

Brieger wrote that Healey was merely explaining the basis for her belief that Exxon might have violated consumer protection statutes. The attorney general has not only the right, but also the duty to investigate the company if she believes it misled consumers and investors, Brieger ruled.

“Nothing in the Attorney General’s comments at the press conference indicates to the court that she is doing anything more than explaining reasons for her investigation to the Massachusetts consumers she represents,” Brieger wrote.

The judge also rejected Exxon’s argument that Healey’s request for documents lacked specificity and imposed an unreasonable burden on the company. Instead, Brieger wrote that the demand “seeks information related to what (and when) Exxon knew about the impacts of burning fossil fuels on climate change and what Exxon told consumers about climate change over the years.” The company had already provided documents to the New York attorney general, she noted.

Exxon has argued that the attorneys general, along with environmental groups, were scapegoating the company and mischaracterizing its research, which it says was evolving along with scientific consensus over time. Exxon Mobil dropped its public arguments denying climate change in 2007.

The probe by the attorney general is one of several efforts being waged through the courts. Additionally, environmental and community groups are trying to prod action on climate change through the courts by seeking to prove that companies profiting from fossil fuel consumption over the past four decades were well aware of the harm their product was causing to the planet.

The Conservation Law Foundation sued Exxon in US District Court in Boston in September over its failure to prepare its gas terminal in Everett for the foreseeable effects of global warming, and the toxic spills that could result from heightened sea levels and storm surges on the surrounding communities.

Environmentalists, who had been outraged that Exxon Mobil responded to Healey’s investigation with a lawsuit, celebrated the ruling Wednesday.

“Today’s decision sends a strong signal that no corporation is above the law,” said Conservation Law Foundation president Bradley Campbell. “Exxon Mobil has spent decades deceiving the public and gambling the health and safety of communities across the state, and Maura Healey has not just the right but the responsibility to investigate the full extent of the company’s wrongdoing.”

Environmental groups were also trying to draw attention to their issue with the spotlight on Tillerson, who just stepped down from Exxon after working there for more than 40 years, the past 10 as CEO.

At Tillerson’s confirmation hearing Wednesday, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in the November election, questioned him about the company’s history on climate change.

“I’m asking you whether those allegations about Exxon Mobil’s knowledge of climate science and decision to fund and promote a view contrary to its awareness of the science, whether those allegations are true or false,” Kaine said.

Tillerson demurred. “The question would have to be put to Exxon Mobil.”

That prompted Kaine to ask: “Do you lack knowledge to answer my questions or are you refusing to answer my question?”

Tillerson answered: “A little of both.” your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+17 # Dust 2017-01-12 15:29
"A little of both" = "I'm utterly ignorant of science and I wouldn't tell you anything anyway as it shows we're interested in nothing but money."
+10 # DongiC 2017-01-12 18:07
"And we don't give a damn about global warming or climate change."
+5 # MainStreetMentor 2017-01-13 06:22
I see parallels between what Exxon, as a petroleum industry giant, is doing and what the tobacco industry did in their cover-up of nicotine enhancement in their products. Both industries engage in a practice, to elevate profits at the expense of all else – including the well-being of the planet or its inhabitants. After the tobacco industry revelations, I’m amazed there were no comprehensive laws enacted to prevent such miscreant behavior again in other industries. Greed, it seems to me, knows no boundaries, and the industries mentioned display ethical values of an alley cat. The bigger failing, however, is our lack of governmental representation for the protection of our citizens. Maura Healey is among state attorneys general who is attempting to rectify that state of affairs now. More power to her.
-10 # 2017-01-13 10:50
Maura Healey has a long history of doing anything to advance her favored causes. She promulgated an energy supply report that attempts to hide the projected increases in energy costs for Massachusetts consumers if her preferred energy mix is implemented. She unilaterally changed Massachusetts gun laws when her favored restrictions couldn't be passed by our (overwhelmingly anti-gun) legislature. She spent taxpayer money on issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with her official responsibilitie s as Attorney General. In the present case, she colluded with other AGs to bring a suit even though no one had any factual basis for the charges (and other AGs have subsequently withdrawn or decided to downplay the suit) in an effort to intimidate dissenters from her position. And too much more to list.

All of Exxon Mobil's research on greenhouse gas warming was published and given to the responsible government entities. The real reason for her fishing expedition was to get the list of donors who have been supporting global warming skepticism so that government pressure can be put on them to silence them. This is authoritarianis m in the extreme.

Good for Exxon Mobil that they are suing her (and Schneiderman) for their foul tactics. I hope they are successful even though my tax money will be used to get Healey off the hook.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
+6 # Dust 2017-01-13 14:58
Lee - once again, please cite your sources for your sweeping statements.

It appears to me that your venom regarding "foul tactics" is primarily motivated by and reserved for images that you feel threaten your world view, and not necessarily rooted in science, fact, or any other objective criteria.

You have never once made disparaging remarks about a single politically or religiously conservative figure, or about ANYTHING that makes money, unless it falls afoul of your religious/polit ical litmus test.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.