Judge Jessner questions city bid to delay firefighter testimony in fire case

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge signaled Monday that she isn't persuaded by the city's argument that firefighters and other eyewitnesses will retain clear memories of the January Lachman and Palisades fires while discovery remains on hold until at least next February.

"While I appreciate what the city has said ... I'm not persuaded, with great respect. I want to focus on preserving recollections and memories," Superior Court Judge Samantha P. Jessner said during a status conference related to the city's recent bid to toss the master complaint.

She ordered the parties to meet and confer on a "far narrowed" plan outlining what limited discovery would entail and to return to her downtown Los Angeles courtroom next Tuesday.

The hearing--described by Jessner as addressing "housekeeping issues"--quickly turned into a debate over whether firefighters who witnessed smoldering conditions between the two January fires should be deposed now rather than months from now, after she rules on the city's demurrer.

Firefighters have reported that they extinguished the small Lachman Fire on Jan. 2 but were prevented from monitoring possible continued burning of embers. Plaintiffs claim the city and state ordered the pullout and allowed the Lachman Fire to reignite.

Jessner said she is inclined to permit a narrow set of depositions aimed solely at preserving testimony.

"The thing that's sort of stuck in my mind is I want to ensure that there is a record of memories," she said. "Memory fades as time goes on. ... If I were to allow limited discovery, it would be narrow to preserve testimony."

Munger Tolles & Olson LLP partner Daniel B. Levin, for the city, urged Jessner to maintain the discovery stay, arguing that no current claims against the city justify early depositions.

"At the moment, there are no claims against the city ... that shows it had anything to do with why the fire started or how the Lachman Fire evolved into the Palisades Fire," Levin said, adding that the case is unlike "typical" utility-origin fire lawsuits.

"We are in an event where the people's memories are what they are," Levin added. "This is a major fire and event for the city of Los Angeles. ... People who remember today are going to remember three months from now."

The city contends Jessner must determine whether the claims are legally valid before authorizing discovery. Levin questioned whether firefighter testimony would be relevant to the complaint and said "jumping into depositions now" would be premature.

Robertson & Associates founder Alexander Robertson IV, who co-leads the thousands of Palisades Fire victim cases, argued that limited firefighter depositions are both relevant and time sensitive.

"To get testimony from firefighters that they saw the smoldering embers ... would go to the existence of the dangerous conditions ... that the smoldering embers were allowed to remain," Robertson said.

"Why is this relevant? Plaintiffs are asking why we are here 10 months after the fire and just now hearing firefighters objected to leaving the smoldering remains of the Lachman Fire on January 2."

According to plaintiffs' counsel, a state parks official who was present at the Lachman Fire allegedly told the Los Angeles Fire Department chief to "stop the mop-up of the land." A key allegation in Robertson's complaint is that the city and state failed to properly extinguish the Lachman Fire, allowing smoldering materials to spark the Palisades Fire a week later during extreme wind conditions. Grigsby et al. v. City of Los Angeles acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 25STCV00832 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 13, 2025).

But Deputy Attorney General Kenneth G. Lake, representing the state, called the alleged order "ludicrous" and denied it occurred.

Jason R. Dawson of Frantz Law Group, who represents a victim who recorded the Lachman Fire smoldering, told Jessner that firefighters have contacted his firm "to let us know they were told to leave it. We have text messages. They want to tell their story."

Robertson added that limited discovery is also necessary because plaintiffs face a 12-month deadline to serve government tort claims. He warned that if the stay remains in place past next year's demurrer hearing, plaintiffs will be unable to identify additional state or local entities that should be named.

"It puts the plaintiffs between a rock and a hard place," he argued, noting that the statutory deadline will expire in 51 days.

Lake said the state's responses to discovery remain "ongoing," in part because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has asked California agencies not to release certain communications tied to the federal criminal investigation of Jonathan Rinderknecht--the man charged with starting both fires. U.S. v. Rinderknecht, 2:25-MJ-06103 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 2, 2025).

Rinderknecht was set for a bail hearing in federal court Tuesday.

According to Robertson, withheld evidence includes a "heavily redacted" incident report from state park officials concerning the Lachman Fire in Topanga State Park. He said plaintiffs have received only one page of that report.

Jessner ordered the state to determine whether the report contains additional pages, as Lake said he was unaware of anything beyond ATF's instruction to withhold fire-related communications.

The city's demurrer--challenging every claim in the master complaint--remains the central procedural obstacle. The complaint names a dozen defendants, including utilities, telecom carriers, and public entities, and alleges that shared negligence contributed to the Palisades Fire.

The city argues the claims fail entirely because the blaze was caused by Rinderknecht's alleged arson and by natural vegetation inside Topanga State Park, not by any condition or conduct attributable to the city.

It further asserts that statutory immunities for fire protection, police protection, and natural conditions bar the claims.

The city maintains that discovery should remain paused until the court rules on the demurrer.