Quinn Emanuel challenges Woolsey Fire judge’s disqualification order

Six months after being disqualified from representing Woolsey Fire claimants, a former longtime utility defender is seeking to reverse the order, arguing it was based on a lack of substantial evidence that he received any confidential information he could use to his advantage litigating against Southern California Edison Co. when he pitched to represent them in another fire case.

Kenneth R. Chiate, partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, was disqualified from the Woolsey case June 14, due to prior exchanges and meetings he had with Edison in December 2017, along with other firms pitching to represent the utility in the Thomas Fire litigation.

Civil plaintiffs and a state fire investigation report claim Edison's equipment sparked the Thomas Fire on Dec. 4, 2017. It burned more than 280,000 acres in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

The cause of the Woolsey Fire, which started Nov. 8, 2018 and chewed through more than 96,000 acres in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, has not been determined. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Edison said its equipment could be found to have been associated with the fire's ignition.

The utility faces thousands of claims in a coordinated proceeding overseen by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger. Woolsey Fire cases, JCCP 5000.

Hueston Hennigan LLP represents Edison in the Thomas and Woolsey litigations.

While barred from litigating against Edison, Chiate confirmed Thursday he continues to assist his clients in related recovery efforts within the limitations set by Highberger's order and with Edison's permission as he awaits the results of appeal. Kristin Blake, et al v. Southern California Edison B298151 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., filed Dec. 4, 2019).

Edison spokesman Robert Villegas issued the following statement Thursday: "SoCal Edison was pleased with the court's original order which ensured proper protection of SCE's confidential information, and we continue to hold that position."

Highberger granted Edison's motion June 14 and disqualified Chiate but emphasized he didn't doubt Chiate believed he was proceeding in subjective good faith, and he and his colleagues weren't shown anything material in confidence.

Chiate urged the appeal court to reverse Highberger's disqualification order, maintaining that if it is left intact, "the order not only will deprive these fire victims of their choice of counsel in this case but will invite groundless disqualification motions in other cases."

Quinn Emanuel had never represented Edison in any case, the appeal noted.

Hueston Hennigan moved to disqualify Chiate from representing claimants in May, claiming prior contacts and meetings for the Thomas Fire litigation dealt with confidential, material information about goals, strategies for subrogation, settlements and challenging the inverse condemnation doctrine.

Chiate's appeal contends those topics were disclosed publicly through Edison's own filings, some of which can be found on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website or the utility's own website.

"They went through great lengths to publicize goals and strategy regarding inverse condemnation known to the courts, Legislature, the governor's office, both before and after calls or the pitch meeting," the appeal motion said. Whatever information Edison claimed to have disclosed to Quinn Emanuel was no longer confidential or material at the time of the hearing on the motion to disqualify, the appeal added.

After thoroughly considering his firm's longtime history and resume of representing utility giants and concluding there were no ethical conflicts by representing plaintiffs, Chiate filed three lawsuits Feb. 25 and teamed up with Engstrom Lipscomb and Lack LLP to represent 181 plaintiffs.

Edison moved to disqualify Chiate after his co-counsel, Walter J. Lack, suggested Edison settle with several elderly clients in April. Edison argued Chiate's access to confidential information from prior contacts presumed there is a substantial relationship between the interactions and the Woolsey Fire cases.

Nothing from those interactions via phone or meetings were material or confidential, the appeal argued. Edison's strategies for settlements and challenging inverse liability were by-the-book and routine, the appeal claimed. Goals and strategy could refer to legal activities such as planning to continue arguing the doctrine shouldn't apply to utilities, filing motions to dismiss and seeking favorable decisions from an appellate court, Chiate's appeal brief stated.

"These are well-known strategies," the appeal added. "Courts refuse to grant motions to disqualify where information at issue constitutes 'playbook info' such as information about an adversary's litigation philosophy."

Highberger's decision was mistakenly based on Edison's vague recollection of what it told Quinn Emanuel during prior meetings and calls about views, goals and strategies, much of which changed dramatically over time, the appeal contended.

Furthermore, the joint utility meeting on Dec. 18, 2017, included representatives from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric and several other defense firms, the appeal said. Chiate suggested Edison may have mixed up what it told other firms with what it told Quinn Emanuel.