evidence

The lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student targeted for deportation by the United States government over his pro-Palestine advocacy, have called on an immigration appeals court to reopen and terminate his case.

The latest legal appeal points to new evidence, some of which was documented in media reports, that Khalil’s lawyers said it “suggests that the Trump Administration secretly engineered the outcome of his immigration case to make an example of him”.

It comes just over a month after the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final order of removal for Khalil, who was first detained by immigration enforcement agents in March 2025, one of several students targeted for their participation in pro-Palestine campus protests that swept the US the previous year.

Khalil, a US permanent resident who is married to a US citizen, has long maintained that he has been unjustly targeted for his political views.

His legal team said on Friday that “apparent procedural abnormalities” support that view.

“It’s clear that the revelations of DOJ misconduct corroborate what we have known since Mahmoud was arrested–that the administration has reverse-engineered its desired outcome by weaponising a farcical proceeding littered with abnormalities,” Johnny Sinodis, a lawyer representing Khalil, said in a statement.

The new evidence includes a report by The New York Times that found that Khalil’s case had been flagged as high priority before it had arrived at the Board of Immigration Appeals, in what his lawyers say indicated the case was being “fast-tracked”.

The report, citing case documents, also found that the court had been instructed to treat Khalil’s case as if he were still in detention custody, which typically results in an expedited processing timeline.

Khalil was released from immigration detention in June 2025 following a federal judge’s order. An appeals court later ruled the judge did not have jurisdiction over the matter. He is also appealing that decision, during which time authorities are barred from re-detaining or deporting him.

The New York Times report also found that three judges at the Board of Immigration Appeals recused themselves from the case. While the reasons for the recusals were not made public, experts familiar with the board’s procedures have said the rate of recusals was extremely rare.

The Board of Immigration Appeals is meant to be independent. Like other immigration courts, it falls under the Department of Justice in the executive branch, which critics say makes it more vulnerable to interference.

Other federal courts fall under the independence of the judicial branch.

The Trump administration has framed Khalil’s deportation as part of a crackdown on anti-Semitism. They have presented no evidence to back the claims against him, and Khalil has never been charged with a crime.

This week, The Intercept news site reported that shortly after he was detained by immigration agents, the FBI had closed an investigation into a tip that Khalil had called for “violence on behalf of Hamas”, saying it did not warrant further investigation.

In targeting Khalil, US Secretary of State Marco had invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and National Act that allows the deportation of individuals deemed to be a national security threat based on “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful”.

The manoeuvre raised questions over freedom of speech and whether those protections extended to permanent residents like Khalil. The government later added the claim that Khalil had intentionally failed to disclose his past work for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) on his immigration application.

Administration officials have repeatedly stood by the claims and maintained that Khalil received proper due process.

In a statement on Friday, Khalil said the administration “wants to arrest, detain, and deport me to intimidate everyone speaking out for Palestine across this country, and they are willing to violate longstanding US rules and procedures to do it”.

He added, “No lies, corruption, or ideological persecution will stop me from advocating for Palestine and for everyone’s right to free speech.”

Cole Tomas Allen, the 31-year-old Torrance man charged with trying to kill President Trump at last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, will remain in federal jail pending trial.

Allen agreed to his ongoing detention during a brief hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “He’s conceding detention at this time,” one of his federal public defenders, Tezira Abe, told Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, according to CNBC.

He did not enter a plea during the hearing, according to the Associated Press.

Abe and Allen’s other public defender, Eugene Ohm, had argued in a filing Wednesday for Allen’s pre-trial release, citing his lack of a criminal record, family support and ties to his church, as well as inconsistencies and weaknesses they allege exist in the government’s case against him.

Abe and Ohm did not respond to a request for comment following the hearing.

In addition to trying to kill Trump, a terrorism-related charge that carries a potential life sentence, Allen faces two firearms charges related to his allegedly transporting two guns across state lines as he traveled from California to Washington by Amtrak train, and allegedly discharging one of those firearms — a shotgun — during the incident.

In arguing for Allen’s release in their Wednesday filing, his attorneys not only insisted he was no danger to the community, but questioned the government’s reasoning and evidence for the charges against him.

Allen was captured on a hotel video camera sprinting past U.S. Secret Service agents and into the secured event space a floor above the dinner while armed, according to prosecutors, with the shotgun, a pistol, and various knives. He then fell to the ground and was detained, according to prosecutors.

Trump administration officials who were at the dinner, including Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C., charged him swiftly — leaning heavily on an email Allen had sent to family just as he was breaching event security, which Trump and others referred to as a “manifesto” but which was titled an “Apology and Explanation.”

In that document, Allen allegedly wrote that he was targeting top Trump administration officials, with the highest ranking among them receiving top priority. He allegedly wrote that he would “go through” others at the event to get to those officials, but that he was not targeting guests or hotel staff and had chosen buck shot rather than slugs to “minimize casualties” in the room.

The charge of attempting to kill the president hung largely on that document, according to charging documents.

Blanche and Pirro also alleged that Allen had fired a shot during the encounter with Secret Service agents, in which they said a Secret Service agent was shot in the ballistic vest. Prosecutors also alleged in court that Allen had fired his shotgun, noting their recovery of one spent casing, but made no mention of a Secret Service officer being shot in the vest.

That alleged shot served as the basis for the one count of discharging a firearm.

In their filing arguing for Allen’s release, his attorneys questioned the legitimacy of both arguments.

They wrote that the government’s “sole proffered evidence” of Allen’s intent to kill Trump — the “Apology and Explanation” letter — was “far from clear” and never actually mentioned Trump by name.

“The government’s evidence of the charged offense — the attempted assassination of the president — is thus built entirely upon speculation, even under the most generous reading of its theory,” Allen’s attorneys wrote. “While the government may be able to say that the letter expresses an intent to target administration officials, it falls well short of narrowing those officials to President Trump.”

Regarding the one count of discharging a firearm, Allen’s attorneys wrote that the government “has not asserted that Mr. Allen ever fired any of the recovered weapons.” They wrote that the government, “after essentially asserting that Mr. Allen shot a Secret Service Officer in the criminal complaint, has apparently retreated from the theory by not mentioning the alleged officer at all” in its filing arguing for Allen’s ongoing detention.

In the latter document, prosecutors wrote only that an officer had seen Allen fire his shotgun “in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom.” However, they provided little evidence to support that claim, other than that the shotgun held a spent cartridge in its barrel.

“In sum,” Allen’s attorneys wrote, “the government’s entire argument about the nature and circumstances of the offense is based upon inferences drawn about Mr. Allen’s intent that raise more questions than answers.”

Prosecutors, in a separate filing in the case related to evidence gathering, rejected the defense claims.

“The preliminary analysis of the crime scene is consistent with the government’s evidence that your client fired at least one shot from the 12-gauge pump action shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G., and that Officer V.G. fired his service weapon five times,” they wrote. “The government is aware of no evidence thus far collected and analyzed that is inconsistent with the above.”

They wrote that evidence suggests Allen fired his Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action shotgun “at least one time as he ran past the magnetometers on the Terrace Level of the Washington Hilton.”

They wrote that investigators recovered one spent cartridge from the chamber of the shotgun, that the “government’s preliminary ballistics and video analyses show that your client fired his shotgun in the direction of” the Secret Service officer identified only as “V.G.,” and that “at least one fragment was recovered from the crime scene that was physically consistent with a single buckshot pellet.”

Evidence in the murder case against the singer D4vd — who is charged with the brutal killing of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez — will not become public until at least late next month, after his defense attorneys pumped the brakes on a preliminary hearing that was scheduled to take place this Friday.

David Anthony Burke, 21, was charged with murder, continuous sex abuse of a minor and mutilating a corpse earlier this month after Los Angeles police stormed a Hollywood Hills home and arrested him. He pleaded not guilty last week.

The singer has long been linked to Hernandez’s disappearance and death, after her badly decomposed body was found in the trunk of a Tesla he owned at a Hollywood tow yard last September. Authorities said Hernandez was last seen at Burke’s Hollywood residence on April 23, 2025.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said last week that Burke killed the 14-year-old because she threatened to expose the fact that he’d been sexually abusing her for nearly a year. An autopsy report made public last week revealed Hernandez died from a pair of stab wounds. Her body was dismembered when police found it in the trunk and two of her fingers had been amputated, the report said.

Burke’s lead defense attorney, Blair Berk, said she does not believe the prosecution’s case can hold up to scrutiny and pushed for an immediate preliminary hearing during his initial court appearance. Defendants have a right to a preliminary hearing, in which a judge determines whether prosecutors have enough evidence to bring a case to trial, within 10 business days. In Burke’s case, that would have put the preliminary hearing on track for May 1.

But on Wednesday afternoon, attorney Marilyn Bednarski asked that the hearing be pushed back to May 26, citing the voluminous amount of discovery in the case. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo agreed there was “good cause” to delay the hearing a few weeks.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Beth Silverman expressed some annoyance at Bednarski and Berk’s change of heart, noting she’d already warned the defense team that prosecutors had a trove of evidence to turn over.

Silverman said last week that discovery materials would include the results of a wiretap and searches of Burke’s cellphone and iCloud accounts, which prosecutors allege turned up “a significant amount of child pornography.” Law enforcement executed 54 search warrants in the case, according to court records.

The medical examiner’s report detailing how Hernandez died was not available to the defense until last week. Prosecutors also convened three secret grand juries between November 2025 and February 2026 to collect evidence against Burke, according to Silverman. Transcripts from those hearings were under seal as of last week.

Bednarski said Wednesday she needed “additional time to review the discovery we either just got, or are about to get, in order to have a full and free preliminary hearing.”

“We told them that this was what was going to be coming,” Silverman argued in reply. “As I said in my brief, we sent out subpoenas, we’ve been preparing, we’ve been telling witnesses to cancel planned vacations.”

Berk also sought to have Olmedo seal a filing that Silverman submitted early Wednesday that laid out evidence she plans to present at a preliminary hearing.

“The prosecution has appeared to file a rather unusual pre-preliminary hearing brief that appears to be a very one-sided view of what is anticipated as the evidence in this case. But no evidence has been presented by the prosecution in a courtroom. Certainly there has been no adjudication of the admissibility of that evidence,” Berk said, expressing worry that the publication of such materials would taint future jury pools.

Prosecutors normally file such briefs ahead of trial, which include a list of witnesses they plan to call and a summary of arguments they will make. Olmedo rejected Berk’s request to seal the motion. A copy of the document was not immediately available for review at the downtown Los Angeles courthouse.

Recently uncovered wreckage of an Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) reveals that Ukraine is employing the AIM-120C-8 version, a weapon that is close to the ‘top of the line’ for these missiles. Ukraine can employ AMRAAMs of all types from its F-16 fighters, as well as from the ground-based National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) air defense system.

A photo showing part of an AMRAAM missile body clearly marked with the AIM-120C-8 designation began to circulate online recently. According to available accounts, the wreckage was found in the aftermath of a Russian air attack on Dnipro in central Ukraine, during which the Ukrainian Armed Forces were active in defense of the city.

Previous imagery of Ukrainian F-16s had confirmed they were using some version of the AIM-120C, which can be identified on account of its cropped fins for internal carriage in the F-22 and F-35. This appears to be the first confirmation that the AIM-120C-8, specifically, has been supplied to Kyiv, in addition to earlier AIM-120A/B versions.

As we’ve discussed in the past, the AIM-120C offers some significant advantages over the earlier AIM-120A/B models.

In general, the ‘Charlie’ version offers a range of advanced capabilities that reflect the continuous development of both this specific sub-variant and the AIM-120 series overall. Even in its earliest sub-generation versions, the C-model features notable upgrades in terms of range, guidance, resistance to countermeasures, and other key areas.

Successive improvements reportedly introduced on the AIM-120C family include a new WDU-41/B warhead (AIM-120C-4), a new WPU-16/B propulsion section with a larger motor and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) upgrades (AIM-120C-5), and an updated proximity fuze (AIM-120C-6). Meanwhile, the AIM-120C-7 features further improved ECCM, an upgraded seeker, and a longer range.

The exact differences between the AIM-120C-8 and the AIM-120D are somewhat unclear, although the D-model, at least, is understood to feature two-way datalink with third-party targeting capabilities. The AIM-120D may also feature an active electronically scanned array (AESA) seeker, while the C-8 remains a mechanically scanned antenna. There have been previous suggestions that the AIM-120D is reserved for the U.S. military and its closest allies, while other international customers receive the AIM-120C-8.

It was an AIM-120D that was used for what the U.S. Air Force described as the “longest known” air-to-air missile shot, during a series of tests in airspace near Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in the fall of 2024. The launch platform on that occasion was an F-22. This would fit with reports that the D-model features significantly greater range than earlier versions, although, once again, the precise differences between AIM-120C-8 and AIM-120D are unclear.

Both the AIM-120C-8 and the AIM-120D have also been further enhanced under the F3R program, developed for the U.S. Air Force. F3R stands for form, fit, function refresh, and is primarily intended to eke out more performance from the missile, as you can read more about here. It’s not clear if Ukraine’s AIM-120C-8s also benefit from the F3R improvements.

A recent promotional video from Raytheon includes footage of a separation launch of the latest-generation AMRAAM F3R from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet:

Air Dominance With a Digital Edge

The plan was for the U.S. Air Force to begin to receive AMRAAMs incorporating F3R starting early 2023, as part of the Lot 33 production run. The U.S. AMRAAM program of record is expected to continue into around 2027 or 2028. As for the AIM-120C-8, these missiles are expected to remain in production for international partners long beyond 2030.

Regardless, the AIM-120C-8 offers Ukraine a notably long-range weapon.

While official performance figures are classified, it is generally assumed to be able to hit targets at a distance of between 75 and 100 miles. Of course, in practical applications, a whole range of factors impact a missile’s reach, above all, the energy and altitude state of the launching aircraft and the target.

In an air-to-air context, the weapon goes some way toward closing the gap with Russia’s R-37M missile, known to NATO as the AA-13 Axehead. According to the manufacturer, at least in its export form, the R-37M can defeat “some types” of aerial targets at a range of up to 124 miles. This likely refers to only larger, less agile, aircraft targets and is very much a “sales brochure figure,” with all the caveats that entails.

At this stage, we don’t know for sure whether the wreckage in Dnipro came from an air-launched AMRAAM, i.e., fired by an F-16, or if it was an effector from a ground-based NASAMS.

In the case of the F-16, the importance of the AMRAAM cannot be overstated. This was the first active-radar-guided air-to-air missile to be fielded by Ukraine. This is a class of weapons that the Ukrainian Air Force long campaigned for. One of its fighter pilots, the late Andrii Pilshchykov, better known by his callsign “Juice,” told TWZ back in 2022: “The lack of fire and forget missiles is the greatest problem for us.”

More recently, Ukrainian F-16s have had to rely more heavily on AMRAAMs. Earlier this year, reports emerged indicating that Ukraine had been left late last year with only “a handful” of U.S.-made AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for its F-16s, after the supply of these short-range weapons dried up.

This left the F-16 pilots with AMRAAMs plus the jet’s internal 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon.

As we have discussed many times before, taking out slow-moving drones via another fixed-wing aircraft with guns can be very challenging and downright dangerous, especially for fast jets. AMRAAMs can be employed against drones and cruise missiles, too, but are more expensive weapons than the Sidewinders. Each AMRAAM costs around one million dollars.

To help plug the gap, Ukrainian F-16s have begun using laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rockets. These rockets provide an extremely valuable, lower-cost option for engaging long-range kamikaze drones and subsonic cruise missiles. U.S. Air Force F-16s began using them in combat last year, as we were first to report.

While somewhat less likely, there’s also a possibility that the Dnipro wreckage came from an AIM-120C-8 fired by a NASAMS.

Deliveries of the first two Ukrainian NASAMS batteries were expedited after Russia’s large-scale missile and drone assault on major population centers in Ukraine in late 2022.

A video showing the Ukrainian NASAMS in action:

Привітання до Дня Повітряних Сил ЗС України 2023

As we explored at the time, a critical advantage of NASAMS is the fact that it fires the exact same missiles used in air-to-air applications. It does not require a special AMRAAM variant or major modifications to existing missiles. In addition, it can fire other types of effectors, including the AMRAAM-ER, which is a hybrid of the AIM-120 and the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), and the infrared-homing AIM-9X Sidewinder and IRIS-T missiles. 

It might be expected that Ukrainian NASAMS is being fed with older AIM-120A/Bs, which, in the ground-launched application, are capable of engaging targets from relatively close ranges to up to roughly 20 miles away and from around 1,000 feet to 50,000 feet. These targets include everything from cruise missiles — which it is very good at engaging — to crewed aircraft and drones.

Another major factor behind the appearance of the AIM-120C-8 wreckage could be the indication that stocks of older (AIM-120A/B and earlier C-version) missiles have been depleted, leading to the inclusion of higher-end C variants. If so, this would increase the pressure on at least some of the foreign partners who are supporting Ukraine with weapons, particularly given the global imbalance between the supply and demand for munitions. The conflict in Iran is likely to intensify this strain, as the United States is reportedly delaying deliveries to customers to prioritize replenishing its own inventories.

As it stands, we now have confirmation that Ukraine is using what is almost certainly the most advanced and capable version of the AMRAAM that is available to all but the very closest U.S. military allies. As such, it should provide Ukraine with a particularly powerful tool in its ongoing battle against Russian air attacks.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

It’s a massive week on Coronation Street next week according to spoilers, as the fallout to murder week could give away the killer with missed evidence, with the victim teased too

While Coronation Street fans will have to wait for the end of this week to find out who dies, new spoilers drop major hints.

Not only do they possibly give away which of the potential victims live or die, but it’s confirmed some huge evidence possibly exposes the killer. We see Betsy Swain in turmoil after finding the body, as detectives begin their investigation.

As soon as it’s revealed it is murder, suspects are lined up and evidence is gathered. But as some characters cover their tracks and get rid of some possible evidence, others could be about to slip up.

Spoilers confirm that next week, Kit begins to investigate the body found on the street, sparking interrogations with a number of residents. As characters struggle to process what happened, it’s soon confirmed to be murder.

READ MORE: Coronation Street fans ‘rumble’ who dies and who kills them after exit clueREAD MORE: Coronation Street star ‘confirms’ exit for villain Theo – but he ‘might not’ die

Todd is struggling to move past Theo’s abuse, while Debbie is waiting for news on Carl, and there’s some shocking truths revealed to the Driscolls about Megan and Maggie. Shona wants answers as the Platts’ home remains a scene of trauma and the search for answers begins.

When forensic results come back, Kit gives an update that the blood at the scene belongs to more than one person. Shona is left haunted, while David confesses how Jodie tricked him into bed.

Later, David hands some evidence into the station but Kit’s questioning leaves him worried that they think he had something to do with what happened to Jodie – while soon there’s some news. Elsewhere, Carla and Lisa do their best to comfort a traumatised Betsy, postponing their honeymoon.

Lisa begins a formal round of questioning. Inconsistencies in someone’s story start to emerge, leading to a public arrest. When some new evidence leaves Lisa and Kit convinced they are one step away from a breakthrough, we learn more than one resident has a dark secret to hide as some incriminating footage is revealed.

Back to the investigation and as the week draws to a close, a couple are struggling, while a suspicious partner demands the truth behind a sudden change in behaviour. Kit and Lisa continue their interrogations, and some deleted evidence threatens to expose the truth.

Soon, a seemingly innocent photograph reveals a hidden presence at the scene of the crime that could change everything. Away from the murder drama, Hope taunts Daniel over Megan, leading to Hope accusing her teacher Daniel of assault.

It’s clear Daniel is struggling as he hits the bottle. Melanie wants son Will to live with her, but tensions lead to Will storming out. Meanwhile, someone attempts to steal something from the pub safe, only to be caught by Susie.

Danielle approaches and asks to talk to Todd about Theo, where she finally shares her own suffering. It’s another big week on the cobbles!

Coronation Street airs weeknights at 8:30pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

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.

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.

The Sunday Times leads on its interview with the Prime Minister, saying he vowed to fight and win the next general election. The paper describes Sir Keir Starmer as “defiant”, with Labour expecting to suffer heavy losses in elections next month. Separately, the paper notes, allies of the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, are continuing efforts to secure him a route back to Parliament, potentially paving the way for a leadership challenge.