After last year’s disastrous Eaton fire, Southern California Edison executives vowed to be transparent about what caused the inferno that killed at least 19 people and left thousands of families homeless in Altadena.
“As we better understand exactly what happened on Jan. 7, we do so with a commitment to remain transparent,” Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said in a published statement after the fire.
In court, however, Edison is keeping crucial documents of the cause of the Eaton fire secret, a legal strategy it has used to shield what happened in at least seven earlier wildfires it was blamed for igniting, according to a Times review.
Edison’s stance has caused mounting frustration with attorneys representing fire victims who are seeking compensation for their losses.
“The Eaton Fire cases should be decided on their merits, not on what information that SCE has been able to withhold,” lawyers for the victims wrote in a recent court filing.
State regulators have repeatedly criticized Edison for its secrecy in previous fires, saying it violated safety regulations and stopped officials from learning the root cause so that similar disasters could be prevented.
For more than a year, Edison employees have been gathering detailed information about what ignited the fire in an investigation the company is required to perform under state utility regulations.
But most of that information is being withheld by Edison’s claim of attorney-client privilege, as well as a protective order that it asked a judge to approve soon after the fire.
Protective orders are commonly used in civil lawsuits, but most cases do not have the broad ramifications to the public as the Eaton fire.
Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, at the Semafor World Economy Summit in Washington on April 14.
(Aaron Schwartz / Bloomberg)
Because of the secrecy, it’s not possible to know just what Edison has found, attorneys for Eaton fire victims said in a filing.
In past fires, regulators have requested from the company — and been denied — photographs, notes, text messages and other records generated by the Edison crew that was first to arrive at the site where the blaze ignited. The company has argued its attorney directed the crew, making the evidence privileged.
The victims’ lawyers say Edison shouldn’t be able to withhold from them most evidence from its investigation into the blaze by claiming that the findings and related documents are covered by attorney-client privilege and therefore confidential.
Sealed Eaton fire documents
Lawyers for victims say that documents sealed by a protective order show evidence of where Southern California Edison’s safety measures fell short before the deadly fire.
Poor inspection and repair of the idle transmission line suspected of igniting the fire
Tower holding the idle line was “virtually unattended for decades”
Dried vegetation removed under electrified wires but not beneath the idle line
Problems with contractors inspecting the line
In a recent interview with The Times, Pizarro disagreed that the company was keeping information on the cause of the Eaton fire secret.
“We believe we’ve been transparent,” Pizarro said. “Facts are not privileged, and so we provided facts as we have known them.”
He said the company’s investigation was continuing. “We still, to this day, don’t fully understand what happened,” he said.
Pizarro said the protective order was needed to keep many things confidential, including some not related to the fire’s cause. For example, he said, it protects maps of the electrical system, which can’t be revealed because of terrorism concerns.
Signs blaming Southern California Edison for the Eaton fire are seen near cleared lots in the Altadena area of Los Angeles County on Jan. 5.
(Josh Edelson / AFP via Getty Images)
He pointed to several company disclosures, including two letters it sent to regulators soon after the Eaton fire that said it was evaluating whether a century-old transmission line, which hadn’t carried power since 1971, “could have become energized” and helped lead to the fire.
Pizarro said last year that the possible reenergization of that old line is a leading theory of the fire’s cause.
The company has said little else about the fire’s cause, other than it safely maintained and inspected the idle line, just like it did its energized lines.
Edison faces thousands of lawsuits from victims of the fire, which burned 14,021 acres and leveled a wide swath of Altadena. The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company was negligent for failing to safely maintain its transmission lines and for leaving the idle line in place when it knew it could become energized. Edison denies the claims of the lawsuits, which have been consolidated in L.A. County Superior Court.
Some documents that Edison says are not privileged and agreed to provide to the victims’ lawyers are sealed by a protective order that the company and the plaintiffs’ lawyers requested.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys often agree to such protective orders on the theory that doing so would allow the utility to more freely share information that could help their case.
Power lines hang from towers carrying power from the Southern California Edison Gould Station.
(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)
Two months after the fire, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Laura Seigle signed the protective order — which covers documents that both sides provide in discovery — including business information deemed proprietary and personal customer data.
According to the protective order, if the case is settled, the lawyers will decide whether the sealed documents should be returned to Edison or destroyed.
If the case proceeds to trial, some of the evidence could become public.
Yet even with the protective order in place, plantiffs’ attorneys say Edison has refused to provide them with evidence from its investigation into the fire, saying it’s protected by attorney-client privilege.
The state-required investigations “are not private inquiries undertaken for SCE’s benefit and legal protection,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote in a filing last year. “Those investigations are regulated activities that exist to protect the public and enhance public safety by preventing future fires.”
To begin those investigations, Edison’s crews often get to the ignition site before government officials. In the 2019 Saddleridge fire in Sylmar, an investigator from the Los Angeles Fire Department found the yellow police tape at the road leading to where the blaze started on the ground and an Edison truck leaving the site, according to his report.
California utility regulators have said the earliest observations at the scene are critical in determining what happened.
L.A. Fire Justice attorney Mikal Watts presents findings on the cause of the Eaton fire at transmission tower 3 at a January 2025 news conference in Pasadena.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Loretta Lynch, former president of the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the electric companies, said she believed Edison was wrongly using attorney-client privilege and protective orders “as a sword to prevent justice.”
Lynch said the confidentiality could keep evidence of Edison’s possible negligence from being used at a future state hearing that will look at whether the company acted safely and prudently before the Eaton fire.
In that hearing, if the commission finds the company acted prudently, all damage costs will be covered by a state wildfire fund and Edison customers. The company and its shareholders would pay nothing.
“It’s time to stop this game of allowing utilities to be negligent and then walk away with their customers paying for it,” Lynch said.
Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company’s “assertions of privilege in civil court have nothing to do” with the future state hearing on whether the company acted prudently.
Dunleavy added that the company has been cooperating with government fire investigators and the plaintiff lawyers, responding to their requests for data.
The government’s investigation into the cause of the fire has not yet been released.
Asked about the company’s withholding of documents in court, Pizarro pointed to a 2024 California Appeals Court decision that found that Edison’s assertion of attorney-client privilege to keep evidence sealed in litigation over the 2017 Creek fire was appropriate under the law. The court said that protecting the documents generated in the internal investigation from public disclosure allowed the company’s attorneys “to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects” of their client’s situation.
Lawyers for victims of the Creek fire, which destroyed more than 100 homes and structures near Sylmar, say Edison failed to provide evidence that showed its line was a likely cause of the blaze, leading government investigators to initially wrongly blame electrical equipment owned by the L.A. Department of Water and Power. Edison continues to deny it caused the fire.
A fire truck makes its way past a portion of the Creek fire along Wheatland Avenue in Sylmar on Dec. 5, 2017.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
In the Eaton fire case, a few details of what’s in the confidential documents have been revealed in court, showing they could be significant when the first trial begins next year.
In February, plaintiff lawyers filed 13 sealed exhibits for only the judge to review, saying they showed how Edison had neglected inspections, maintenance and repair of the idle line. The records are subject to the protective order, shielding them from public view.
“There is ample evidence in this case that SCE performed more frequent and higher quality inspections and maintenance on its live equipment than it did on its inactive facilities,” they wrote.
“From all indications, SCE left Tower 208 virtually unattended for decades,” they added, referring to the pylon that held the idle line and was found to be the location of the fire’s first flames.
The plaintiff lawyers also said the protective order prevents them from disclosing photos to the public that show Edison left vegetation growing under the idle line while removing it from beneath the live wires running parallel to it, according to the court filing. Utility regulations require vegetation to be removed from under and around electric lines to reduce the risk of fire.
The lawyers added that the sealed documents showed that Edison was having problems with an outside contractor it had hired to inspect its transmission lines.
Asked about the filing, Pizarro said the claims were assertions by the plaintiff attorneys that would be debated in court.
Some legal experts have criticized the use of protective orders for keeping the public in the dark about dangerous corporate actions or products.
Lynch said protective orders and confidential settlements in wildfire litigation are preventing the public from learning information that could stop future deadly fires. She said California should consider legislation to ban the use of the secrecy tactics in wildfire lawsuits.
Firefighters work to contain the Saddleridge fire on Oct. 10, 2019, in the Sylmar neighborhood of Los Angeles.
(Patrick T. Fallon / For The Times)
The Times found protective orders in lawsuits against Edison for the 2017 Thomas fire and mudslides, which killed 23; the 2018 Woolsey fire, which killed three; the 2019 Saddleridge fire, which killed one; and the 2022 Fairview fire, which killed two. Those fires together caused billions of dollars in damages and destroyed thousands of homes.
Lawyers for the Eaton fire victims told the judge in February that the protective order, as well as similar secrecy orders in lawsuits over other fires, had kept them from speaking publicly about certain subjects in the courtroom, including what they knew about Edison’s line inspections.
“This is a significant case, against one of the world’s largest providers of electricity, which has, through the use of Confidentiality Protective Orders in other cases, impaired the Plaintiffs’ ability to fully inform the Court,” they wrote.
Late last month, Judge Seigle ordered Edison to give the victims’ lawyers more of the documents they had requested. The protective order limits the public’s access to them.
MORE than three decades after London helped launch her career, Tori Amos is back in the city, headlining the Royal Albert Hall for a tenth time.
The US singer is chatty and upbeat despite staying up until 5am, still riding the high of her gig the night before.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Tori Amos is back with her 18th album, In Dragon TimesCredit: Kasia Wozniak.Tori playing London’s Albert Hall on TuesdayCredit: Getty
With her striking red hair falling in waves and her vivid green eye make-up, Maryland-raised Tori, who has called Cornwall home since the late Nineties, looks every inch the star.
“London was the place that gave me my big exposure explosion,” she says.
“It really did shake my life up. And here we are again.
“London broke Silent All These Years in the autumn of 1991, and then launched [debut album] Little Earthquakes, which rippled out to the States and the rest of the world.
“America really discovered me through London, and then the UK did, too. From there, it just kept rippling outwards.”
On her forthcoming 18th album, In Times Of Dragons, Amos turns political dread, female resistance and personal storytelling into something unique and mythic.
She says: “I’m very reclusive at home and I’m not very sociable there so when I’m on tour I go from this insular life, where I do a lot of reading, music and writing, and step into this much more exposed life.”
The contrast between Amos’s secluded home life and her role as a performer feeds directly into an album shaped by both personal reflection and political unease.
The record is a response to the current political climate in America because, as a songwriter “a lot of my work is documenting time,” she tells me.
“That’s what I did with Little Earthquakes, which followed my time of failure after [her synth band] Y Kant Tori Read when I had to go back to play piano bars.
“I have a history of documenting things — my miscarriage in 1998 and that journey, then my 2002 album Scarlet’s Walk which documented 9/11 when I actually wrote some of it on the tour bus.”
The idea for In Times Of Dragons came through the muses — otherworldly entities — that Amos believes bring her music.
She has spoken widely about these guiding forces, which she says have inspired her songwriting since childhood.
And last year she published children’s book Tori And The Muses, all about them.
She says: “This message came to me through the muses that I needed to document America at this pivotal time in history.
“And I had to personalise this.
“It came to me a year ago that I needed to be me in the story and be closely connected to one of these people, and what that would look like, because they are personally affecting us.
“I had to turn the volume on that to create this narrative, whatever turning into a dragon looks like.”
The album follows the story of Tori trapped in a world run by billionaire tech moguls and lizard dragons, who threaten democracy through corporate greed and authoritarianism.
Amos says: “Jane Mayer writes about the genesis of this in Dark Money, which is one of the most important books people need to read if they’re asking, ‘How did we get here?’.
“This has been going on since the Seventies.
“As Mayer documents, figures like the Koch brothers — and I use that as an umbrella term for a wider movement — helped shape it, along with super PACs [organisations that spend millions supporting political candidates] and all the rest.
“It seems there was an understanding that progressive teaching in universities had to be excavated, cut back and penetrated by a very tight right-wing philosophy that is now upon us.
“And I’m not just talking about Republicans and Democrats. I’m talking about tyranny versus democracy.
“If you had asked me about this even around the Scarlet’s Walk era, I was already going after it through that record, and then through [2007 album] American Doll Posse during the Bush-Cheney administration with the wars, the manipulation, all of that.
“Then there was a period of relief, when a different, more inclusive philosophy came in, whatever your politics are.
“For me, it’s about the philosophy.
“As a songwriter, I’ve been tracking that through my career.
“On this record, I had to take a personal journey and look at the effects of what this very small cabal of men is doing — and there are women involved too, we can’t get confused about that.
“There’s Cambridge Analytica, the involvements of the Mercers, Rebekah Mercer [the right-wing US heiress and political donor] and all those interconnections.”
The album’s story sees Amos’s character flee and reunite with her daughter.
This part is played by her real-life daughter Natashya, who co-wrote tracks Veins, Strawberry Moon and Stronger Together — the latter of which she also sings backing vocals on, and is one of the most emotional songs on the record.
“She was in DC at the time, in law school, and she graduates in a few weeks,” says Amos proudly.
“She’s going into criminal law and really had her finger on the pulse.
“On a daily basis she’s seeing things that the wider public probably isn’t, unless you’re a political journalist.
Tori in a shoot for the new album. An actress portrays her daughter, who co-wrote three songs and sings backing vocalsCredit: Unknown
“We’re so inundated that the little freedoms being quietly taken away can be missed.
“Criminal law is her calling.
“So, writing these songs with her, with her understanding of what’s happening in the field she’s chosen, and her exposure to the shock of what is being torn to pieces, was hugely important.
“She says we are past constitutional crisis and what’s going on is absolutely shocking.”
The final song, written last- minute for the album, is Ode To Minnesota — a response to the deaths caused by ICE agents there.
She says: “Heinous, atrocious crimes are being committed and so this is the world of the record.”
Amos, 62, has a long history of addressing America in song, and In Times Of Dragons continues that while exploring wider patterns of male power.
It’s also a reminder of her role as a feminist icon and the influence she’s had on artists such as Lady Gaga, Florence Welch and St Vincent (real name Annie Clark).
“Annie’s one of my dear friends,” she says of St Vincent.
“She’s fabulous. We have a giggle and I’m thrilled for her, for her art, and for the way she’s balancing motherhood so beautifully.
“It’s lovely to see people who came to my shows when they were younger.
“She’s talked to me about Choirgirl [Tori’s 1988 album From The Choirgirl Hotel] and what it meant to her when she first heard it, and we’ve had laughs about that.
“And it’s the same with the guys too.
“I’m off to an event later and the guy doing the Q&A used to stand by the stage door as a teenage gay kid.
“To see these people grow up, and to still be able to bask in their creativity and development, is a beautiful thing to witness.”
But while Amos is moved by the artists and fans who have grown up with her work, she is hesitant to define her own feminist legacy.
She says: “It’s not for me to say, that’s more for other people to decide.
“Believe it or not, I’m a bit introverted about that.
“What I think I’ve tried to do, and what I have done, is there for those who know it.
“What’s important to remember is that there was no social media then.
“When people ask, ‘Was it easier back then?’, well, in some ways no, and in others yes.
“We did have a music business with a few women in record companies, though only a few in executive positions.
“One or two could balls their way through, but you really had to.
“And if you didn’t have that tenacity in the Nineties — especially to get played on radio — it was tough.
“At an alternative station in the States, they might add two women out of 64 slots, and the other 62 would be men.
“I’ve spoken about that with some of my contemporaries over the years, Alanis [Morissette] being one of them, and it was not a good feeling — knowing that talented women with very good records were simply not being added to the station.
“And touring took money.
“That’s why I never had tour support.
“In the early days, I went out with just a piano, my tour manager and a sound guy. That was it.
“We kept the costs down, and luckily the shows sold out, because the Press had really got behind me.”
Today, Amos points to Dolly Parton as proof that women can keep evolving, performing and owning the stage on their own terms as they get older.
“She is fantastic and she’s aware we are a different generation that played this game and played it well,” says Amos.
“There are women who are still playing the game beautifully, and they still have the physicality and the health to do it.
“I used to have a three-and-a-half octave range when I was doing those one-woman shows.
“But with the change of life — becoming a dragon, if that’s the menopause analogy — you adapt or you collapse.
“For me, it wasn’t a crisis in the way it has been for some women we’ve read about in the Press, and I have huge empathy for that.
“But vocally, I did have to make changes.
“I didn’t want to alter the top lines of songs with those very high, wide-ranging melodies, so on the last tour I simply didn’t play them.
“Then I thought, ‘No, that isn’t what I want.
“I want the whole catalogue available to me as a storyteller’.
“So, I decided to bring in backing singers who could hit those notes.
“It was a strategic, compositional choice.
“I didn’t want to be in a position where I could only perform 40 per cent of my catalogue because of range.
Tori at the 1992 MTV Video Music Awards in Los AngelesCredit: Getty
“And we’re having a blast.
“They’re amazing singers.
“I’ve gained four notes at the lower end and I feel like I’m down there rocking with Nick Cave, but that’s the trade-off.
“I gained more on the lower end, while recognising that if I want to play those songs, you can only transpose them down so far before they lose their essence.
“I have so much respect for Nick Cave.
“I used to run into him in the early Nineties.
“His work has always been a beacon of beauty and darkness — expansive work that makes you think.”
Like Cave, Amos remains restlessly creative, and she is already thinking about where to go next.
“After something as demanding as this, I’m doing a prequel to children’s book Tori And The Muses — that will be out next year,” she says.
“Her journey as a little girl with her muses.
“It’s due next April — and there may be music to go with it too.”
In Times Of Dragons is out on May 1.
Tori Amos’ In Times Of Dragons is out on May 1Credit: Kasia Wozniak.
People are being urged to check theirs as soon as possible before peak season
13:20, 12 Apr 2026Updated 13:31, 12 Apr 2026
More than 1.2 million are due to expire in 2026 (stock image)(Image: Getty)
An alert has been issued by money specialists, as an important document is expected to expire for millions of people in the UK this year. It is raising concerns that large numbers of British travellers could be caught out just as the holiday season reaches its peak.
More than 1.2 million UK Global Health Insurance Cards (GHICs) are due to expire in 2026. Nearly 800,000 are expected to run out during the peak summer holiday months of July to September, according to new Freedom of Information data accessed by PayingTooMuch, a travel insurance comparison site.
The NHS says a GHIC lets you get necessary state healthcare in the European Economic Area (EEA) and in some other countries on the same basis as a resident of those countries. This may be free, or it may require a payment equivalent to that which a local resident would pay.
On the NHS website, it states: “A UK GHIC is free and lasts for up to five years. Apply for your new card through the NHS website. Avoid unofficial websites – they may charge you a fee to apply. The UK GHIC is not a replacement for travel insurance. We advise you to have private travel and medical insurance for the duration of your trip.”
The FOI sent to NHS Business Services Authority also highlights a significant rise in expiring cards this summer. The data shows that more than 290,000 GHICs are due to run out in August alone, coinciding with the busiest period for overseas travel.
In response, a money specialist warns that thousands of travellers could unknowingly head abroad with expired GHICs this summer. While this is a small detail often missed amid holiday planning, it’s one that could lead to serious consequences.
Hannah Mayfield (DipFA), founder of What Is Wealth, says the sheer volume of 2026 expiries could leave many people caught out. She said: “If you fall ill or face a medical emergency, discovering too late that your GHIC is no longer valid only adds stress at the worst possible moment.
“With such a high number of GHICs expiring this year, particularly during the busy summer holiday period, it’s vital that travellers check their card well in advance. It is an easy detail to overlook, but one that could leave you seriously exposed once you are already overseas.”
Mayfield warns that the risks do not stop at travelling with an expired card. The FOI data also shows how expensive medical treatment abroad can become, even when state support is accessible. The highest GHIC/EHIC claim last year exceeded £340,000, while the second highest topped £226,000.
“That is the part many travellers may not fully realise,” explains Mayfield. “While a GHIC can help to access basic state-provided healthcare, it is not designed to cover the full range of issues travellers commonly encounter – from private treatment costs if needed to flight cancellations, lost bags or emergency repatriation to bring you home.”
A GHIC is accepted in most EU countries, plus a few additional countries with reciprocal healthcare agreements. It can reduce your medical costs abroad if you need treatment, but it doesn’t make treatment completely free or cover everything.
You might still have to pay for your treatment upfront and buy prescriptions, which you can then claim back through your travel insurance. If you use your GHIC to pay medical fees abroad and make a medical claim through your travel insurance, some providers waive the policy excess on the medical claim, ultimately saving you money.
Mayfield reminds holidaymakers that travel insurance is an essential part of holiday planning, as a good policy provides protection in areas that the GHIC does not. When choosing a policy, she advises checking that cancellation cover matches the full cost of your holiday and ensuring it is tailored to your health needs, destination, and excursions. Comparing travel insurance is a good way to find cover that suits you and the type of trip you are taking, especially if you have with pre-existing health conditions.”
With so many GHICs expiring this year, experts recommend travellers check their card and travel insurance at the same time they book the trip. Renewing early is particularly important if your card expires within six months of your trip, as leaving it too late can lead to complications if treatment is needed overseas.
“You can apply for a free GHIC directly from the official UK government website. All family members should have one in their name. You’ll need your UK address and some basic personal details and usually it will arrive within 7-10 working days.
“Be wary of bogus sites asking you to pay for a GHIC as you don’t need to, they are free,” she adds. Mayfield urges travellers to “check their GHIC now, don’t wait until the airport to discover it has expired.”
A trove of sensitive Los Angeles police records, including officer personnel files and documents from Internal Affairs investigations, are among the materials seized by hackers in a breach last month involving the L.A. city attorney’s office.
The leak involves 337,000 files, including some of the LAPD’s most closely guarded records. The documents posted online include the disciplinary histories of officers and investigations into complaints against them, materials that are typically sealed from public view under state law.
The massive hack sent shudders through the department. Officials have sought to downplay the extent of the disclosure, but activists who have long pushed for more transparency around acts of officer misconduct quickly put a spotlight on sensitive files they were able to access.
After The Times published a story Tuesday about the hack, the Los Angeles Police Department issued a statement that said “unauthorized individuals had gained access to a digital storage system,” enabling them to obtain “discovery documents from previously adjudicated or settled LAPD civil litigation cases.”
The department noted that it was a compromise of the Los Angeles city attorney’s office computers and that the “breach does not involve any LAPD systems or networks.”
“We take this incident very seriously and are working with the L.A. City Attorney’s Office to gain access to the impacted files to understand the full scope of the data breach,” the department’s statement said.
Ivor Pine, a spokesperson for the city attorney’s office, said in a statement that the office first became aware March 20 of “unauthorized access to a third-party tool used by the City Attorney’s Office to transfer discovery to opposing counsel and litigants.”
Pine said the office “took immediate steps to secure the tool and investigate what information was accessed,” including contacting law enforcement.
“The City Attorney’s Office has confirmed that no other City applications or systems were involved in this incident,” Pine said. “The information was self contained in this application without any links or access to any department records or systems. Our investigation is continuing to determine what information was present in the tool and we will take appropriate action to notify any affected parties based on the results of this review.”
The Los Angeles Police Protective League — the union that represents the department’s rank-and-file officers — issued a statement Wednesday afternoon that criticized the city attorney’s office for its handling of the breach.
The union’s board of directors said City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto “should have picked up the phone and informed us about this egregious data breach when she claims she learned of it several weeks ago.”
“We first learned of the breach by reading the Times and the City Attorney has still not provided the union with an honest assessment of the breach’s magnitude, who was impacted, what was disclosed and how this could have happened,” the union’s statement said. “To say we are disappointed by the lack of urgency and forthrightness from the City Attorney’s office is an understatement. We will keep asking the tough questions and once we receive answers we will take appropriate action.”
Within the Police Department, there has been virtually no acknowledgment from senior leaders about the breach or its implications, according to LAPD sources who requested anonymity in order to discuss the confidential matter.
According to one of the department sources, there was a vague reference to LAPD employees needing to change their passwords more frequently at a regular meeting Monday of command staff — but no mention of the breach itself or what files had become public.
The data were obtained by a well-known hacking group known for conducting ransomware attacks on large entities and demanding payment, threatening to make the confidential data public on the web. City and LAPD officials did not comment on whether the hackers requested a ransom in return for not releasing the information and whether the city paid one.
A spokesperson for the FBI’s office in Los Angeles said the agency “is aware of the incident, is actively assisting the City’s Attorney’s Office, and is coordinating with partners.”
At least one hacking group on March 20 claimed to have access to the city of Los Angeles files. Cybercrime investigators from both the federal government and the LAPD have been pursuing the hack since last month, according to police sources who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the open case.
Some of the records have surfaced on social media platforms, including X. Among the first to share a file from the hack was the account @WhosThatCop, which regularly posts about information related to police accountability.
The account’s administrator said a security researcher first disclosed the breach. A link to the files apparently had been taken down by Tuesday afternoon.
The disclosure represents a stunning breach of police data. Some files circulating from the hack included personal health information of officers, witness interviews from criminal investigations and internal probes conducted by the department. Only rarely do Internal Affairs documents surface in civil lawsuits and criminal cases, and even then they are often heavily redacted.
In all, according to posts about the data breach, 7.7 terabytes of information was available for download.
The disclosure of confidential LAPD records could unleash a new round of costly lawsuits by officers. About 900 officers are currently suing the department related to a 2023 release of mugshot-style images — along with names, races and other demographic details of police officers — in response to a public records request.
The LAPD statement described the files in the recent hack as coming from closed cases. But the X account @WhosThatCop published a redacted internal affairs report from an apparently ongoing case. The case involves a lawsuit by a woman who alleges that she was sexually assaulted by an LAPD officer days after the officer took her into custody in 2022.
In a statement to The Times, the account’s anonymous operator applauded the hack.
“Sadly, having the public resort to transparency by relying on 340,000 City Attorney files being published at the hands of criminals is emblematic of the stonewalling and incompetence by City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto, Mayor Bass, and LAPD Chief McDonnell,” the operator said.
According to court filings, the city reached a conditional settlement with the woman on March 20 — the same day the data theft was revealed by hackers. The matter had been set to go to trial next week.
The lawsuit alleged that the officer, Gabriel Anthony Espadas, detained the woman on a mental health hold after responding to a call for service in the San Fernando Valley. The woman’s lawsuit contends that the officer “engaged in nonconsensual sexual activity” with her after her release.
The city defended itself in the lawsuit, saying the “two sexual encounters” involved an “off-duty, probationary officer” who was “not acting within the course and scope of his employment.”
The disclosure is the latest of several cybersecurity incursions targeting public agencies in Los Angeles. Last month, the city’s metro system shut down parts of its network after its security team detected hacking activity. Law enforcement and cybersecurity specialists are continuing to investigate who was behind the attack, authorities said.
WASHINGTON — Three fired FBI agents sued on Tuesday to try to get their jobs back, saying in a class-action lawsuit that they were illegally punished for their participation in an investigation into President Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.
The federal lawsuit adds to the mounting list of court challenges to a personnel purge by FBI Director Kash Patel that over the last year has resulted in the ousters of dozens of agents, either because of their involvement in investigations related to Trump or because they were perceived as insufficiently loyal to the Republican president’s agenda.
The lawsuit in federal court in Washington was technically filed on behalf of just three agents but may have much broader implications given that its request for class-action status could open the door for agents fired since the start of the Trump administration to get their jobs back.
The three agents — Michelle Ball, Jamie Garman and Blaire Toleman — were fired last October and November in what they say was a “retribution campaign” targeting them for their work on the investigation into Trump. The agents had between eight and 14 years of “exemplary and unblemished” service in the FBI and expected to spend the remainder of their careers at the bureau but were abruptly fired without cause and without being given a chance to respond, the lawsuit says.
“Serving the American people as FBI agents was the highest honor of our lives,” they said in a statement. “We took an oath to uphold the Constitution, followed the facts wherever they led and never compromised our integrity. Our removal from federal service — without due process and based on a false perception of political bias — is a profound injustice that raises serious concerns about political interference in federal law enforcement.”
Trump’s indictment
The investigation the agents worked on culminated in a 2023 indictment from special counsel Jack Smith that accused Trump of illegally scheming to undo the results of the presidential election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. Smith ultimately abandoned that case, along with a separate one accusing Trump of illegally retaining classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., after Trump won back the White House in 2024, citing Justice Department legal opinions that prohibit the federal indictments of sitting presidents.
The lawsuit notes that the firings followed the release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of documents about the election investigation — known as Arctic Frost — that he said had come from within the FBI. Those records included files showing that Smith’s team had subpoenaed several days of phone records of some Republican lawmakers, an investigative step that angered Trump allies inside Congress.
The complaint names as defendants Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, accusing them of having orchestrated the firings despite being “personally embroiled” either as witnesses or attorneys in some of the legal troubles Trump has faced.
Patel, for instance, was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury investigating Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and had his phone records subpoenaed, while Bondi was part of the legal team that represented Trump at his first impeachment trial, which resulted in his acquittal.
“And now, by virtue of presidential appointment to the pinnacle of federal law enforcement, Defendants are abusing their positions to claim victories that eluded them on the merits,” the lawsuit states.
Spokespeople for the FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. Patel and Bondi have said the fired agents and prosecutors who worked on Smith’s team were responsible for weaponizing federal law enforcement, a claim that was also asserted in their termination letters but that the plaintiffs call defamatory and baseless.
Fired agents call for ‘fundamental constitutional protections’
Dan Eisenberg, a lawyer for the agents, said in a statement that his clients were fired without any investigation, notice of charges or chance to be heard.
“This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm fundamental constitutional protections for FBI employees, ensuring they can perform their duties without fear or favor. We all benefit when law enforcement officers’ only loyalty is to facts and the truth,” said Eisenberg, who is with the firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel.
The lawsuit asks for the agents to be reinstated to their positions and for a court declaration affirming that their rights had been violated. It also seeks to represent a class of at least 50 agents who have been terminated since Jan. 20, 2025, or will be. Those agents also stand to recover their jobs in the event the case is successful and the requested class-action status is granted.
Others have been fired too
Other fired employees who have sued include agents who were photographed kneeling during a racial justice protest in 2020; an agent trainee who displayed an LGBTQ+ flag at his workspace; and a group of senior officials, including the former acting director of the FBI, who were terminated last summer.
The firings have continued, with Patel last month pushing out a group of agents in the Washington field office who had been involved in investigating Trump’s hoarding of classified documents. Trump has insisted he was entitled to keep the documents when he left the White House and has claimed without evidence that he had declassified them.
WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday stormed out of a closed-door briefing on the Jeffrey Epstein files by Justice Department leaders, and said they would push to force Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to answer questions under oath about the case that has plagued the Trump administration.
Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche went to Capitol Hill to try to quell bipartisan frustration over the Justice Department’s handling of millions of files related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation.
But less than an hour into the briefing, Democrats walked out in protest of the arrangement and said they would press to enforce a subpoena for Bondi to appear for a sworn deposition next month.
“We want her under oath because we do not trust her,” said Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost.
Asked by reporters after the briefing whether she would comply with the subpoena, Bondi said, “I made it crystal clear I will follow the law.” She also defended the department’s handling of the Epstein files, saying officials are proud of their work to release millions of documents to the public.
The committee’s Republican chairman, Rep. James Comer, accused Democrats of political grandstanding.
“This for us, for the Republicans, it’s about getting answers,” Comer said after the briefing. “For the Democrats, it’s a political game, and they just demonstrated that today. There’s no reason for them to walk out and clutch their pearls and act like they were offended and outraged.”
Justice Department leaders had hoped the release of documents tied to the disgraced financier would put an end to a political saga that has dogged the president’s second term, but the agency remains consumed by questions and criticism over Epstein’s case and its management of the files. Bondi has accused Democrats of using the furor over the documents to distract from Trump’s political successes, even though some of the most vocal criticism has come from members of the president’s own party.
Five Republicans on the committee voted with Democrats to support the subpoena for Bondi to appear for a deposition on April 14. Lawmakers have accused the Justice Department of withholding too many files and criticized the agency for haphazard redactions that exposed intimate details about victims.
The Justice Department has called the subpoena “completely unnecessary,” noting that members of Congress have been invited to view unredacted files at the Justice Department and that department leaders have made themselves available to answer questions from lawmakers.
The department has sought to assure lawmakers and the public that there has been no effort to shield President Trump, who says he cut ties with Epstein years ago after an earlier friendship, or any other high-profile figures close to Epstein from potential embarrassment. Justice Department leaders have also rejected suggestions that they have ignored victims and insist that while there is no evidence in the files to prosecute anyone else, they remain committed to investigating should new information come forward.
“I’m not trying to defend Epstein — I’m not,” Blanche said in an interview this week with Katie Miller, who is married to top Trump advisor Stephen Miller. “I do defend the work that this department is doing today, right now, which is going after every single perpetrator anyway, and if there is a narrative that exists that we are ignoring Epstein victims, that is false.”
The documents were disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted after months of public and political pressure that requires the government to open its files on the late financier and his confidant and onetime girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell, 64, was convicted in December 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for her role over a decade in sexually exploiting and abusing underage girls with Epstein.
Criminal investigations into the financier have long animated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and others who have suspected government cover-ups and clamored for a full accounting.
After missing a Dec. 19 deadline set by Congress to release all the files, the Justice Department said it tasked hundreds of lawyers with reviewing the records to determine what needed to be redacted, or blacked out. The Justice Department in January said it was releasing more than 3 million pages of documents along with more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.
WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi was subpoenaed Tuesday to answer questions from Congress about the Justice Department’s sex trafficking investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and the agency’s handling of millions of files related to the disgraced financier.
Bondi was ordered to appear for a deposition on April 14 by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform after a vote earlier this month that five Republicans supported.
The Justice Department’s failure to fend off the subpoena from the Republican-led committee underscores widespread discontent among President Trump’s own base over Bondi’s management of the review and release of a trove of documents from the criminal investigation into Epstein.
“The Committee has questions regarding the Department of Justice’s handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates and its compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” Rep. James Comer, the Republican chairman, said in a letter to Bondi.
“As Attorney General, you are directly responsible for overseeing the Department’s collection, review, and determinations regarding the release of files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the Committee therefore believes that you possess valuable insight into these efforts,” he wrote.
The department on Tuesday called the subpoena “completely unnecessary.” Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche were expected to provide a private briefing Wednesday to members of the committee.
“Lawmakers have been invited to view the unredacted files for themselves at the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General has always made herself available to speak directly with members of Congress,” the department said in a statement. The agency said it looks forward to “continuing to provide policymakers with the facts.”
The Trump administration has faced constant political headaches since the rollout of the files began in December, with critics accusing the department of hiding certain documents and over-redacting files. In other cases, victims have slammed the department for sloppy redactions that revealed their sensitive information.
The Justice Department has fiercely defended its handling of the Epstein files, saying it worked as quickly and diligently as possible to review and release millions of documents required under the law. The department has denied any accusations that it used redactions to protect certain people or improperly withheld certain materials. And it has said it immediately worked to fix any redaction errors raised by victims.
A judge recently entered an eviction ruling against actor Mickey Rourke who, despite owing nearly $60,000 in unpaid rent at his Beverly Grove home, rejected more than $100,000 raised in a GoFundMe campaign coordinated by his manager to keep him housed.
On Monday, a judge issued a default eviction ruling in favor of Rourke’s landlord, Eric Goldie, for possession of the home and termination of the rental agreement, according to documents in Los Angeles Superior Court. The default ruling means that Rourke failed to take action to defend against the eviction complaint within the time allowed by law.
Rourke, who was a leading man in the 1980s with movies including “Barfly” and “Angel Heart” and was later Oscar-nominated for his role in 2008’s “The Wrestler,” was served a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises on Dec. 18 and failed to comply, according to court documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
On Dec. 29, his landlord filed the eviction complaint, alleging that Rourke owed him $59,100 in back rent on the $7,000-a-month rental.
In January, Rourke’s management team set up a GoFundMe to help keep the actor in his home, with his representative Kimberly Hines listed as the benefactor. Hines did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
“Mickey Rourke is an icon — but his trajectory, as painful as it is, is also a deeply human one,” read the description for the since-shuttered GoFundMe. “It is the story of someone who gave everything to his work, took real risks, and paid real costs. Fame does not protect against hardship, and talent does not guarantee stability. What remains is a person who deserves dignity, housing, and the chance to regain his footing.”
Fans quickly rallied to support the 73-year-old, with around 2,700 donors raising more than $100,000 within three days.
But Rourke refused to accept the money, denouncing the campaign in a Jan. 5 video posted on his Instagram as “humiliating” and stating he would rather shoot himself (in a rather graphic way) than accept charity.
Rourke said he was in a “really bad situation” after new owners purchased the home he had been renting for years and would not fix anything. “I said I’m not paying rent, because there’s mice, there’s rats, the floor is rotten, one bathtub there is no water,” he said in the video.
The “Iron Man 2” villain said he didn’t know who started the GoFundMe but assured fans he would speak to his lawyer and get to the bottom of it. He repeatedly urged anyone who donated to get their money back.
Hines, his manager of nine years, previously told the Hollywood Reporter that it was not true that he did not know who started the fundraiser, noting that she and her assistant ran the idea past Rourke’s assistant and everyone agreed it would be helpful.
“Nobody’s trying to grift Mickey. I want him working. I don’t want him doing a GoFundMe,” Hines told THR in January. She said she had arranged to move him out of the unit and into an apartment in Koreatown, noting that the Beverly Grove home had severe water damage and black mold.
An attorney for the landlord did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment Tuesday.
Times staff writer Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
