‘It’s a blanket of silence’: Fire victims’ advocates blame city for blocking visibility of Palisades fire

Lawyers for the city of Los Angeles moved this week to block the release of a long-awaited deposition of firefighters that could provide deeper insight into their decisions and actions in the days leading up to the deadly Palisades fire.

Attorneys representing the city in a lawsuit brought by Palisades fire victims requested a general protective order the parties agreed to in June, which allows either side to designate all or part of any evidence in the case as confidential for up to 30 days. The parties must meet at that time to determine which parts should be kept confidential, and any disagreements resolved by a judge.

The Los Angeles Fire Department has faced increased scrutiny over its handling of the New Year’s Lachman fire since agency officials revealed that its coal re-ignited the Jan. 7 Palisades killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes.

October, The Times report that the LAFD chief ordered firefighters to pick up their hoses from the Lachman burn on Jan. 2, although workers warned that the world is still smoldering. The LAFD also did not use thermal imaging technology to locate underground hot spots.

But it’s still unclear why the LAFD made those decisions. More than a year after the Palisades fire, the public has yet to hear from firefighters about putting out the Lachman fire. The deposition of dozens of firefighters over the next two weeks — part of a lawsuit against the city and state — gives the public a rare opportunity to hear firefighters’ accounts of what happened.

These allegations started on Monday with the testimony of Capt. Cesar Garcia and Firefighter Michael Contreras. Garcia and Contreras worked at Fire Station 23, one of two stations in the Palisades, when the fire broke out.

As their trial is winding down, attorneys representing the city said they are temporarily releasing both of the confidential documents under a protective order, according to Alexander “Trey” Robertson, who represents the victims of the fire.

“It’s clear that they’re trying to shut down the peace with these areas that have been put up by firefighters,” said Robertson. “It’s just a delaying tactic to try to protect it from the public.”

Dan Levin, an attorney representing the city, said the move gives the city time to review the evidence and decide which parts, if any, should remain confidential.

“The City has temporarily designated LAFD firefighter deposition testimony as confidential under a Court protective order so that the City can review the documents to determine which portions of the testimony should remain confidential to protect people’s privacy or other confidential information,” Levin said. “This is a standard procedure in the trial. The plaintiffs agree to the court order that creates this procedure.”

A protective order allows a party to designate a portion of all evidence as “confidential,” defined as information the party “believes in good faith … is entitled to confidentiality under applicable law.”

According to Robertson, nothing in the firefighter’s testimony warrants confidential treatment under California law. Generally, he said, the “confidential” information covered by the protective order refers to non-public, sensitive data such as trade secrets or personal information, such as Social Security numbers and health records.

“These are real, eyewitnesses,” Robertson said. “We ask them … What do they do? What do they see in their work?”

Robertson also said an LAFD captain was in the room when the reports were released Monday, “watching and monitoring what the firefighters were saying,” suggesting it may have been an intimidation tactic.

“It’s not normal at all,” he said.

An LAFD spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on why the captain entered the room.

Firefighters are being laid off for a month after plaintiffs’ attorneys questioned California State Parks workers. In December, a number of state employees, including state park rangers and environmental scientists, testified about their roles in the hours and days after the Lachman fire burned, providing new details of their actions and interactions with firefighters.

State attorneys did nothing to keep the testimony of their employees temporarily confidential. The Times reviewed the filing, as well as messages from several State Parks employees.

Evidence and documents show that California State Parks’ first concern when the fire broke out was that the fire was on park property and that firefighting efforts and equipment would damage endangered plants and artifacts.

Once they determined that the burn scar did not include sensitive areas, they turned to other concerns: they asked firefighters to cover part of the hydrant that had cut through the combustible vegetation with freshly cut brush and encouraged them not to wait too long before removing the hoses.

The first state park ranger to arrive at the Lachman burn site on the morning of Jan. 1 testified that he saw the ground smoldering but did not report it to the LAFD or anyone in the state parks. He didn’t think the smell was anything to worry about, since the fire had just been put out a few hours earlier. LAFD hoses, he said, are still on site.