PacifiCorp has admitted to contacting jurors outside of court in a lawsuit over the 2020 Labor Day fires after plaintiff attorneys requested an order barring the company from further juror outreach.
On March 18, PacifiCorp said in court filings in James et al vs. PacifiCorp it had “interviewed several jurors” after an initial trial in 2023 and after a recent damages trial that began Feb. 26.
In the 2023 trial, held in Multnomah County Circuit Court, PacifiCorp was found liable for negligently causing the Santiam, South Obenchain, Echo Mountain Complex and 242 fires.
The Feb. 26 trial was part of proceedings to determine damages to a class of roughly 5,000 individuals. An initial damages trial began Jan. 8 and a third is tentatively scheduled for April 22.
In the March 18 filing PacifiCorp admitted it had reached out to jurors after each trial to collect feedback on the company’s defense strategies. It also said it “does not intend to use any of the information obtained [during juror contacts] to overturn any verdict.”
PacifiCorp’s trial defenses have ranged from implicating forest management policies and climate change to blaming employees and targeting the mental health histories of fire survivors. These defenses did not prevent jurors from awarding $217.5 million in combined damages to 36 plaintiffs, representing a potential for billions of dollars in total damages to the class.
PacifiCorp attorneys said their outreach allegedly violated no laws, despite claims by plaintiffs that the company was in “clear violation” of Oregon statutes. Nevertheless PacifiCorp attorneys said March 18 their outreach has been suspended after plaintiff attorneys raised concerns over the matter directly with defense counsel March 14.
In a statement to Our Town, a PacifiCorp spokesperson said the company’s actions were within the law and that plaintiffs’ claims of wrongdoing were “without merit.”
“PacifiCorp attorneys’ outreach to jurors requesting input and feedback after the James trial is consistent with Oregon law and within the confines of what was permitted in this case,” said the spokesperson.
PacifiCorp’s admissions came after a March 15 motion by plaintiffs to bar further juror communications after plaintiff attorneys learned of two instances of juror contact.
According to plaintiffs’ motion, on June 21, 2023 – nine days after the verdict in the initial trial – a PacifiCorp consultant messaged a juror on LinkedIn. The consultant did not describe their relationship with PacifiCorp or mention the James case by name. They said they were “asked by the trial team to reach out to the jurors to see if they’d agree to a short interview.”
Then on March 14, a juror from the Feb. 26 trial contacted plaintiff attorneys and said a PacifiCorp consultant had called them directly asking about the trial, according to the motion. This juror said they were asked questions such as whether or not PacifiCorp’s arguments were “aggressive,” their impressions of the defense witnesses, and how the jury reached its decision on damages.
During this trial PacifiCorp attorneys highlighted the mental health histories of specific plaintiffs, arguing the company should not be liable for emotional harm that predated the fires. Plaintiffs accused PacifiCorp in closing arguments of weaponizing fire survivors’ past traumas.
Plaintiffs’ motion cited the Uniform Trial Court Rules, which state attorneys “must not initiate contact with any juror concerning any case which that juror was sworn to try.” They also cited the Rules of Professional Conduct which state, under specific conditions, “A lawyer shall not… communicate with a juror… after discharge of
the jury.”
Plaintiffs further cited statements by Judge Steffan Alexander admonishing jurors at the conclusion of each trial to not discuss deliberations with non-jurors.
PacifiCorp’s March 18 opposition said plaintiffs were “misreading and misunderstanding” the laws and that no rules expressly prohibited attorneys from seeking feedback from jurors. They also said Alexander prefaced his admonitions by stating should expect people to approach them with questions about the trials, allegedly validating PacifiCorp’s actions.
In a rebuttal filed March 20, plaintiff attorneys said the Oregon State Bar addressed this issue in a formal opinion in 2005. They said the opinion “specifically forbids initiating contact with jurors – as PacifiCorp has done – ‘to determine what did or did not impress them about lawyer’s arguments.’”
“These are serious transgressions that reflect a complete (and apparently intentional) disregard for the rules governing juror contact,” said plaintiffs.
They said PacifiCorp attorneys should be required to make sworn statements as to the nature and scope of juror contacts and not simply be taken at their word that juror contacts were benign.
They also reiterated a request for a hearing as soon as possible to address their concerns, and as of press time no future hearings were scheduled in the case.
Judge rules on post-trial motions
Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Steffan Alexander has issued a slate of rulings on post-trial motions in James et al vs. PacifiCorp as Phase II of the case proceeds.
Parties argued the matters during a hearing March 21 and Alexander took the issues under advisement. Decisions were issued March 25, include:
– Denial of PacifiCorp’s motion to overturn the verdict of a Jan. 8 trial, to set a new trial and to decertify the class.
– Partial approval of a “common benefit fee”, which Alexander set at 10 percent for class members excluding those who opted out and those who reached certain agreements with plaintiff.
– Partial approval of PacifiCorp’s request to offset economic damages in the Jan. 8 trial corresponding to insurance payouts, which Alexander set at $4.43 million total.
– Partial approval of plaintiff attorney’s request for reimbursement of trial costs for the 2023 Phase I trial, which Alexander set at $93,727.
Complete coverage of this issue, including the status of motions still pending, can be found at ourtownsantiam.com.
