Court seeks middle ground in Edison wildfire dispute

The trial court judge presiding over the Eaton Canyon wildfire litigation ordered the parties on Tuesday to come up with a proposed stipulated order that balances plaintiffs' request that Southern California Edison preserve equipment and evidence that could indicate its culpability in the the wildfires, and Edison's efforts to restore power to its customers.

She said she wants to avoid a discovery battle with multiple plaintiffs but will include them in upcoming proceedings.

Edison was under an order not to reenergize its electrical towers and transmission lines until Feb. 18 in the Altadena and Pasadena area where the utility said it saw an increase in current around the time that the Eaton Canyon wildfire broke out on Jan. 7. Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury also ordered Edison to produce data associated with the fire.

But plaintiffs' attorneys with Edelson PC accused Edison days later of surreptitiously reenergizing transmission lines and spoliating evidence in the area at issue. The firm requested a preliminary injunction. Edison's attorneys with Hueston Hennigan LLP said an injunction was not necessary because the utility was preserving its equipment in that area and provided notice when it needed to work on equipment near the preliminary origin area.

Dozens of plaintiffs have sued Edison since the wildfires broke out on Jan. 7. Most of those actions are temporarily stayed. Perhaps acknowledging many of those attorneys in the gallery, Judge Laura A. Seigle, who got the case at the end of last week, said she wanted to avoid making an order because those parties need to be involved in discovery.

"I don't want to turn it into a discovery battle because, as I said, we have a lot of other plaintiffs, and if you all started taking discovery, then all the other cases are going to want to take discovery and the ability to manage all these cases falls apart. So right now, we need to focus on what is necessary to preserve evidence," Seigle said.

So, she pushed the parties before her to reach an agreement.

"If we can't reach that goal, then we'll talk about injunctive relief. But let's first see if we can actually reach an agreement," Seigle said. "Once a case is filed, everybody has an obligation to preserve the evidence. So right now, everybody is under that obligation, whether we have a signed order or not."

Hueston Hennigan's Douglas J. Dixon told Seigle that his client did not have any issue with preserving documents, and that the plaintiffs were trying to force them to do what they were already doing.

"[Can] you all ... put in writing an agreement - which I will sign - that says all of these documents are going to be preserved," Seigle said.

"That works for plaintiff, your honor," Amy B. Hausmann of Edelson PC replied. "Our main interest is having a court order that confirms this. So as long as SCE is willing to put that in writing and have the court sign off ..."

Seigle said she would be happy to do that and then asked the plaintiffs what they wanted regarding the temporary restraining order. Did they want it to remain in effect? Did they want it revised?

"I think that what we would like is for the modified TRO that Judge Chowdhury entered to remain in place at least through the [case management conference] next month," Hausmann said. "That will give everyone a window to conduct some of this testing. It may be that we're able to make modifications at that point after the testing takes place."

Edison has a few problems with that, Dixon said.

"There are two types of equipment generally at issue, your honor," Dixon said.

"The TRO was motivated by an effort to preserve distribution equipment, and what Judge Chowdhury did was he agreed with Southern California Edison's efforts to preserve distribution equipment within a one-mile radius immediately adjacent to the county's preliminary origin area. And we've been preserving that equipment," he said.

Dixon went on to say that the defense had not heard any interest in the distribution equipment that Edison was preserving, and that they have given plaintiffs an opportunity to inspect that material.

Seigle responded that discovery was stayed.

She asked if the temporary restraining order was preventing Edison from providing electricity.

Dixon said it wasn't.

Hausmann suggested preserving equipment in substations as well.

Dixon said that was an unjustified and burdensome expansion of the temporary restraining order.

Seigle opted to keep the temporary restraining order in effect until Feb. 26. Iglesias v. Southern California Edison Company et al., 25NNCV00200 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed, Jan. 13, 2025).