SoCal Edison seeks to disqualify Quinn Emanuel as plaintiffs’ counsel in fire suits

LOS ANGELES -- Southern California Edison is seeking to disqualify Quinn Emanuel from representing plaintiffs in the Woolsey Fire cases, claiming the firm might use litigation strategies gleaned from a 2017 pitch meeting with the utility.

The motion was made Friday by Edison's lawyers from Hueston Hennigan LLP in the coordinated JCCP 5000 Woolsey Fire cases. The cases' first status conference was May 7 before Judge William F. Highberger of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Woolsey Fire burned 96,949 acres in Los Angeles and Ventura counties in November 2018, resulting in three fatalities and prompting the evacuation of more than 295,000 people. The cause of the blaze remains under investigation but plaintiffs say they believe electrical infrastructure owned by Southern California Edison came into contact with vegetation.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP earlier this year switched sides to represent Woolsey plaintiffs after more than a decade of representing investor-owned utilities in wildfire litigation, including cases against San Diego Gas & Electric and Pacific Gas & Electric. Quinn withdrew as PG&E's attorneys in the Butte County fire matters on April 29.

Edison hired Hueston Hennigan to represent it in the Thomas Fire cases.

Quinn Emanuel teamed up with Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack LLP to represent plaintiffs in the Woolsey case, which could have substantial overlap with the other cases, the motion argued.

Quinn Emanuel and Engstrom Lipscomb previously faced off against each other in the Butte Fire matters, when Quinn represented PG&E.

Quinn Emanuel participated in joint discussions with PG&E, SDG&E and Edison on inverse condemnation/settlement strategies, fire cost recovery and insurance issues soon after the Thomas Fire in Ventura County in December 2017. Edison also shared confidential information about its relationship with the Department of Forestry and California Protection Services, which was investigating the wildfires, the motion states.

Also, lawyers from Hueston Hennigan and Quinn Emanuel had several strategy calls, at least two of which concerned Edison's arguments for challenging the applicability of inverse condemnation to investor-owned utilities in the utility's demurrer in the Thomas Fire litigation, the motion stated.

There is no law that forces Quinn Emanuel to safeguard any privileged information and not use it against the utility, the motion argued.

A declaration filed by Edison's in-house attorney, Russell C. Swartz, noted that Kenneth R. Chiate, Quinn Emanuel's lead attorney on the matter, told him the firm had an ethical wall erected but never provided information for how that was happening, specifically as it related to inverse condemnation claims.

"There is no basis for disqualification, and we deny all the claims," Chiate said in an interview on Monday. "We believe this is a strategic tactical move to prevent Quinn from representing plaintiffs."

Quinn Emanuel was disqualified last week from representing a competitor in a lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. in the Northern District of California because it previously defended the company against other competitors.

Chiate said there were no similarities between the cases. They "are totally different for different reasons, because we never represented SCE before," he said. SC Innovations Inc. v. Uber Technologies Inc., 18-CV07440 (N.D. Cal., filed Dec. 11, 2018).

Highberger will hear arguments May 30.