Southern California Edison Company (SCE) has filed a complaint against the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking relief from an order compelling the production of documents. The petition was filed in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, on May 31, 2024. The defendant in this case is 21st Century Insurance Company and other real parties in interest.
The case revolves around a dispute stemming from the Creek Fire that ignited on December 5, 2017, in Los Angeles County. Several insurance companies, having compensated policyholders for losses caused by the fire, claim that an arc from SCE's electric powerlines was responsible for starting the blaze. They have sued SCE under a subrogation theory to recover their payments to insureds. During discovery in this subrogation case, SCE withheld certain documents it claimed were protected under attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. These documents were generated during an internal investigation initiated and directed by SCE’s in-house counsel to assess potential legal liability.
The plaintiffs argued that these documents should not be exempt from production because they were created primarily to comply with state law requiring public reporting of any involvement SCE had in causing the fire. The trial court sided with the plaintiffs, stating that since the dominant purpose of SCE’s investigation was compliance with public reporting requirements rather than obtaining legal advice, the documents were not privileged and ordered their production.
However, upon review, the appellate court found that this ruling improperly invaded protections afforded by the attorney work product doctrine. According to California law, even if an internal investigation's primary purpose is to comply with statutory or regulatory reporting requirements, any attorney work product generated during such investigations remains protected if it assists counsel in advising clients on compliance matters. The appellate court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown sufficient grounds for producing their adversary’s work product and thus determined that the trial court erred in compelling its production.
The appellate court emphasized that communications between non-attorneys could still be protected under attorney work product doctrine if they are part of an investigation led by attorneys for providing legal advice or preparing for litigation. It noted substantial evidence showing that SCE’s claims department acted as agents for its legal department during the investigation into the Creek Fire. This evidence included declarations from SCE’s lead claims trial attorney Brian Cardoza and other witnesses who confirmed that Claims employees conducted investigations at counsel's direction to facilitate legal advice regarding potential regulatory actions and litigation risks.
Ultimately, Southern California Edison Company seeks a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling document production and issue a new order denying plaintiffs' motion based on work product protection grounds. This relief would prevent disclosure of materials prepared as part of confidential internal investigations led by attorneys.
Attorneys representing Southern California Edison Company include John C. Hueston, Douglas J. Dixon from Hueston Hennigan; Belynda B. Reck; Patricia A. Cirucci; and Brian Cardoza from Southern California Edison Company itself. Representing real parties in interest are Craig S. Simon from Berger Kahn; Adam Romney from Grotefeld Hoffman; and Gregory P. Waters from Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack.
Judge Elihu M. Berle presided over this case at Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No: 21STCV18308), while Justices Weingart, Chaney, and Bendix reviewed it at the appellate level (Case ID: B333798).