The Sacramento County Superior Court has ordered California Gov. Gavin Newsom to disclose public records related to his office’s interactions with utility giant PG&E in the wake of the 2020 Zogg Fire.
The judge’s decision was in response to a lawsuit filed in August last year by Brandon Rittiman, an investigative reporter with KXTV-TV/ABC 10, after his requests for Mr. Newsom’s office to hand over specific documents relating to PG&E were allegedly repeatedly denied.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Rittiman sent multiple requests to Mr. Newsom’s office in 2023 seeking complete copies of all calendar entries involving Ann Patterson, the governor’s cabinet secretary, after she spoke at PG&E’s Investor Day last May, citing public interest in her appearance at the event.
California officials had claimed the fire—which left four people dead and destroyed hundreds of buildings—was caused when a tree fell on energized conductors owned and operated by PG&E in Shasta County on Sept. 27, 2020.
Further investigation found that the tree that caused the fire was not removed in time because of PG&E’s “poor recordkeeping.”
‘Failure to Hold PG&E Accountable’
According to Mr. Rittiman’s lawsuit, during her appearance at the PG&E Investor Day event, Ms. Patterson described the utility giant as a partner for a “whole variety of problems” including “wildfire mitigation,” despite the recent settlement.Mr. Rittiman further claimed in the lawsuit that his requests for the calendar entries were repeatedly denied by the governor’s office, who instead informed him the documents were “exempt from disclosure as the Governor’s correspondence and as records revealing the deliberative process of the Governor or his staff.”
Eventually, following “meet and confer efforts” between the parties, the Governor’s Office released a copy of the May 24, 2023, calendar entry documenting Ms. Patterson’s attendance at the PG&E Investor Day—information that was already publically available.
However, Mr. Rittiman had requested copies of all public records related to the event, including who Ms. Patterson spoke, arguing that Mr. Newsom’s office had an obligation to “demonstrate how Ms. Patterson was involved in the alleged failure to hold PG&E accountable” or “how she was involved in the CPUC’s decision-making process.”
‘Significant’ Public Interest
Despite the reporter’s repeated requests, the Governor’s Office has declined to release any further responsive records, arguing in court documents that there was not a “heightened” public interest in Ms. Patterson’s meetings with PG&E and that Mr. Rittiman had failed to demonstrate the Governor’s Office has any influence on decisions made by the CPUC.Additionally, Mr. Newsom’s office had argued that disclosing the identities of, and dates on which Ms. Patterson met with PG&E employees could “chill the flow of information to the Governor and could deter individuals from engaging with the Governor’s office” in the future.
In her ruling, Judge Chang disagreed, writing that public interest in the subject meetings is “significant.”
“The Court finds this public interest is increased by the timing, even if such timing is coincidental, of the CPUC’s settlement with PG&E regarding the Zogg fire, which was followed a week later by Ms. Patterson’s public appearance at the PG&E shareholders’ event,” the judge wrote.
Judge Chang further stated that the arguments made by Mr. Newsom’s office regarding potentially hampering the flow of information to the Governor are “speculative and do not provide any information as to how this specific, and fairly limited, request will harm the governor’s deliberative process.”
“These generalized ‘parade of horribles’ arguments do not provide the Court with any information upon which it would determine that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighed the public interest in disclosure in this case and under these factual circumstances,” the judge concluded.
The Epoch Times has contacted Mr. Newsom’s office for comment.
