Plaintiffs’ still want Porter Ranch cause report admitted

LOS ANGELES -- Plaintiffs lawyers say they will continue to press a superior court judge to allow as evidence a root cause analysis report into the massive 2015 gas leak near Porter Ranch, north of Los Angeles.

Southern California Gas Co. sought to suppress the report, arguing the issue presented a question of statutory interpretation, most notably, California Public Utilities Code Section 315, which states accident reports are deemed excluded from trial to protect regulatory investigations.

In an Aug. 29 order, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl agreed the report shouldn't be allowed into evidence at the trial, currently scheduled for June 2020. CPUC code makes certain documents -- especially accident reports -- inadmissible at trial while it may be publicized, Kuhl wrote. Publicizing a report can occur because it won't be submitted as evidence, she added.

Thousands of plaintiffs have sued SoCal Gas over the rupture. Southern California Gas Leak cases, JCCP 4861 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 2, 2016)

For several months, the plaintiffs have battled SoCal Gas over the report compiled by third-party investigator Blade Energy Partners.

The report found well-casing corrosion caused the gas leak in Aliso Canyon that spewed more than 100,000 metric tons of methane. Prior to the rupture, SoCal Gas failed to investigate more than 60 reported casing leaks at the facility dating back to the 1970s, the report found.

CPUC code makes clear that a root cause analysis report is an accident report. In this case, the report was requested by the CPUC to supplement its own investigation.

The report was submitted to the CPUC at its request; thus is it classified as an accident report, Kuhl noted.

A spokesperson for SoCal Gas could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

One of the plaintiffs' counsel, Rex Parris of Parris Law Firm, said Wednesday precluding the Blade report from trial would likely complicate litigation as counsel must now depose live expert witnesses in front of the jury to lay foundations of the incident.

While the Blade report is technically hearsay and would've been difficult to bring into trial, "I think we had a sound argument, but the intent of section 315 was against us," said Parris.

There's nothing in the report that won't come into evidence, according to Parris, but plaintiffs will just have present in testimony the same opinions from Blade employees who compiled the report during trial.

Plaintiffs hailed the report, maintaining it contained damning evidence that showed a consistent pattern of neglect on the utility's part that led up to the leak.

The fight to get it into trial isn't over, said Parris, who said he plans to continue to fight for its admissibility. He said he believes SoCal Gas and its lawyers made their entire issue moot, due to their subsequent conduct after the report was released in May under the supervision of the CPUC and the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.

The utility previously issued a statement contending the Blade report confirmed the utility did comply with gas storage regulations in existence at the time of the leak and didn't find any indications of a casing integrity issue.

SoCal Gas issued a news release agreeing with portions of the report but without indicating the portions they disagreed with, Parris said.

The subsequent publication and agreement made the report admissible, he observed.

"The utility's own dissemination could re-open the issue of admissibility, which we'll know at the time of trial," Parris added. "This accident report is unique, and there's still a lot of ground to plow through."