Judge says shutdown led to her lack of involvement in dispute

LOS ANGELES -- The judge in the Porter Ranch gas leak litigation said she could better rein in defense delays in turning over crucial documents after plaintiffs' counsel tore into Southern California Gas Co. attorneys Thursday.

Despite $525,000 in defense sanctions, Brian P. Panish of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP, co-lead trial counsel for 200 firms representing some 36,000 plaintiffs suing SoCalGas over the 2015 gas leak, said delays by the utility's firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, in turning over crucial documents on the eve of trial have left plaintiffs at a disadvantage.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl partially agreed, saying the court shutdown had also contributed to the prolonged discovery disputes.

Panish chastised defense attorneys, alleging they stalled litigation in one of the more contentious hearings in the matter's nearly five-year history. He told Kuhl her orders haven't stopped the opposing firm from proceeding with discovery abuses despite her sanctions.

David L. Schrader, a Morgan Lewis attorney in the matter, said a number of claims asserted by Panish were false.

"There are a number of allegations and personal attacks which are unsupported by the record here," said Schrader, adding Panish's assertion it took 12 tries to schedule a deposition wasn't true.

"The idea I am stonewalling or anyone on my team is stonewalling is not accurate," he said.

Panish told Kuhl during a 30-minute argument in the mostly telephonic hearing, "Because of a lack of respect the court has lost all control of discovery in this case. I know the court has spent a lot of time preserving the civil justice system. And we've lost it here."

At issue was Kuhl declining to grant the plaintiffs' latest sanctions motion related to tens of thousands of documents defense attorneys have sought to block. The complex civil case judge, who has already sanctioned defense counsel for continued discovery misconduct, is taking a "wait-and-see" approach.

"The court believes that this requested sanction would only lead to further delay and additional disputes about reopening depositions," wrote Kuhl in her order.

Nevertheless, the judge said such conduct has become the "defining aspect" of the defense's discovery obligations.

"Defendants have, time and again, clearly failed to meet their most basic discovery obligations."

Kuhl said defense counsel has made it a practice of broadly citing privilege to a large amount of documents, only to stand down on most of them after intense opposition from plaintiffs. She pointed to one defense log that listed 55,000 privileged documents, which removed 100,000 documents previously cited as privileged months ago.

"The court, like plaintiffs, will never know just what type of documents plaintiffs might have gained had defendants not repeatedly abused the discovery process," wrote Kuhl. "It is impossible to know how plaintiffs might have prepared their case had they not been forced to move forward on depositions and trial planning without large swathes of non-privileged documents.

Panish, who described the case as morphing into "Rambo litigation," argued relevant documents would show notice of the gas leak problem, as well as important Department of Public Health and Public Utilities Commission records.

"This court needs to get more involved because they are not respecting your orders," Panish told Kuhl.

"I agree that I need to get involved," responded Kuhl. "I have been precluded from doing that in the past three months," referring to the recent court scale down.

Schrader said reading the judge's decision "stings," but he wasn't going to try and change the court's mind.

His colleague James J. Dragna said there should be more room for "understanding" given "we are in an unprecedented pandemic."

About 200 law firms are representing the plaintiffs who have sued the utility over injuries related to the Aliso Canyon leak. Around 100 depositions have been completed and about 1.5 million documents have exchanged hands.

Prior to the court shutdown, the matter appeared to be moving toward resolution with a looming June trial date. But after four years, such a date might not come until fall or 2021.