More complete version of fire causation report must be released, judge says

A Los Angeles County judge presiding over a wildfire mass tort litigation involving Southern California Edison Co. ordered a more complete version of an investigation report into the 2018 Woolsey Fire to be shared publicly.

Tuesday's decision was issued in the coordinated, consolidated action in which Edison faces thousands of claims arising out of the fire that blackened more than 98,000 acres in Ventura and Los Angeles counties. The utility has acknowledged to its shareholders that it was the subject of the government's investigation, and that it was likely the company's equipment that sparked the blaze that took three lives and destroyed more than 1,500 structures. Foley et al v. Southern California Edison Co., 18STCV08779 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 17, 2018)

The Ventura County Fire Protection District and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection compiled the report. For close to a year, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has kept secret the contents of the full report that detailed the fire's cause, origin and areas, and several other important details.

The urgency for plaintiffs to obtain the report grew over the last several months, following a hearing in February when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger granted in part Edison's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the inverse condemnation cause of action. The judge did, however, allow plaintiffs to amend the lawsuit to adequately plead the inverse liability to have their points more closely aligned with the California Supreme Court decision in City of Oroville v. Superior Court, Cal. 5th 1091 (2019). That feat was not possible without being able to incorporate and cite to the Cal Fire report, according to a motion filed Oct. 5 by the individual plaintiffs' counsel Ari Friedman of Robins Cloud.

Over objections from state agencies, Highberger on Tuesday said the less redacted report should no longer be deemed confidential, and could be shared publicly and used in future court filings. Edison was already provided a copy of Cal Fire's report, the judge reasoned. Moreover, some aspects of it remain redacted, and whatever was produced to counsel under confidentiality wasn't a reason to keep it from the public.

"I really just don't see how letting the report become a truly public document so that by way of example an amended complaint can reference it expressly without a request to be filed under seal, there seems to be a whole lot of upside," Highberger said according to a court transcript. "I don't just find a factual showing made by the Attorney General or Ventura Fire about why a continued confidential status of the less redacted report serves any overriding, let alone minimal, public interest at this time."

The fight over the Cal Fire report was originally supposed to be disclosed to plaintiffs on April 1, which was delayed after the COVID-19 shutdown orders. Plaintiffs sought to either have their subpoenas enforced to continue questioning Edison's experts, or get the report. Without the report, plaintiffs couldn't amend their lawsuit either as to the inverse challenge.

"Plaintiffs have been placed at a strategic disadvantage because of the Attorney General's delay," Friedman argued in his motion. His motion was joined by co-lead counsel for plaintiffs Lexi J. Hazam of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Alexander Robertson, Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP, Howard D. Maycon of Cozen O'Connor and Craig S. Simon of Berger Kahn. The confidential status would render the plaintiffs' pleadings unsettled, and further impact trial preparation and settlement talks.

State prosecutors indicated they could make a charging decision as to Edison by the end of the year, and wanted the report sealed until then. The attorney general was joined in his opposition by Scott Summy, Victoria E. Sherlin and John P. Fiske of Baron & Budd PC, which represents Ventura County Fire Protection District. The government argued the report wasn't final and the probe wasn't complete.

Parties in the case are now allowed to lawfully share the document with any media outlet as well, Highberger has ruled. The judge's order is stayed until Oct. 27 to give the government time to appeal.