Judge declares mistrial after juror used spreadsheet in Edison fire case

A three-week Thomas Fire debris flow damages trial against Southern California Edison ended in a mistrial Thursday after a Los Angeles County judge found that a juror's laptop-based spreadsheet work - and his alleged decision to take notes home - improperly injected outside analysis into the jury's deliberations.

Cannabis businesses Start Inc. and CA Labs accused Edison - which has taken responsibility for the 2017 blaze - of also being responsible for subsequent smoke, ash and debris flow that damaged a greenhouse and forced the businesses to shut down. The jury had been prepared to award $1.4 million to Start and $69,000 to CA Labs.

"As much as I don't want to do this ... I must declare a mistrial," Superior Court Judge Elaine Lu told the attorneys.

The matter stems from a handwritten note submitted by a juror identified as Juror No. 8, who raised concerns about possible misconduct among panelists the day the verdict was to be read on Wednesday.

Lu's order followed two days of testimony from all 12 jurors in the case, as well as the alternates.

"The judge's ruling reinforces that verdicts must be based solely on the evidence presented in court in a fair, deliberative process. We recognize the significant time and effort devoted to everyone involved," Hueston Hennigan LLP partner Douglas J. Dixon, for Edison, said outside of the courtroom.

Cappello & Noël LLP partner Leila J. Noël, for the plaintiffs, while opposing Edison's motion, acknowledged Lu's reasoning and said the team will be ready to try the case again.

According to the jurors' testimony, a juror identified as Juror No. 3 - an economics professor - was accused of bringing a laptop into the deliberation room Monday and using an Excel spreadsheet to calculate damages. Some jurors testified that Juror No. 3 brought his juror notebook home during trial, others - including Juror No. 3 - denied that was the case.

Lu said she credited the jurors who testified that Juror No. 3 acknowledged taking notes home.

"There were three or four jurors who testified that No. 3 said ... that he brought his notes home," Lu said. "I can fathom no reason why those jurors would fabricate that."

While Lu emphasized she did not believe Juror No. 3 acted with ill intent, she said his lack of candor was troubling.

"I think frankly what's more troubling ... is he didn't come clean when he had an opportunity to," Lu said, noting that Juror No. 3 denied having done so and denied telling other jurors.

Lu said that taking notes home alone would not have justified a mistrial.

"Now, this by itself, if this were the only thing that he did wrong, I would not grant this motion," Lu said.

Lu found the more serious issue was Juror No. 3's use of a prebuilt spreadsheet template, which she said amounted to an outside analytical tool created at home before deliberations began.

"One of the jurors ... told us that he had actually prepopulated formulas in this spreadsheet at home," Lu said.

Lu noted Juror No. 3 generated the spreadsheet over the weekend, days before final jury instruction was read and the case handed to the jury.

"He did this over the weekend. The case had not been submitted to the jurors yet at that point," she said.

Although Juror No. 3 insisted that he relied only on trial evidence, Lu said she did not find that credible, citing examples where he drew on knowledge not introduced in court.

"He himself admitted certain things that he did ... that he relied on ... were not introduced in the courtroom," Lu said.

The judge found that in attempting to help the jury evaluate expert damages testimony, Juror No. 3 effectively became an "unsworn expert."

In their testimony, most of the jurors admitted the spreadsheet was central to their deliberation process and that many would not have been able to generate such calculations independently.

Moments before the ruling, Lu heard about 30 minutes of oral arguments from the attorneys on the matter. Because some jurors were to be released on Friday, the judge said the parties did not have time for overnight briefing.

Dixon, for Edison, argued there was "compelling" evidence of "serious" juror misconduct that prevented the utility from receiving a fair trial. The primary issue was Juror No. 3's questioned conduct.

Noël, for the plaintiffs, countered that jurors repeatedly denied conducting outside research and said the spreadsheet was grounded in expert testimony presented at trial. "Your honor, nobody said that the spreadsheet had any outside sources used," she said.

Noël also noted Juror No. 3 "made it very clear" during his testimony that he did not use any outside sources and relied on the expert formulas already admitted into evidence.

"In short, we do not see anything rising to the level of juror misconduct that would warrant a mistrial in this case," Noël said.

The case is part of a larger group of coordinated lawsuits over the fallout from the Thomas Fire, involving similar damages claims brought by individual plaintiffs, public entities and insurers.