Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp

34-2022-00325257-CU-MT-GDS: Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Defendant PacifiCorp (“Defendant”) moves for an order to enforce the terms of the McKinney Fire Resolution Protocol and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6(a) as it relates to the purported settlement reached with Plaintiffs James and Elizabeth Deland (“Plaintiffs”). (Notice.)

The Parties’ APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED to address the Parties’ respective motions to seal and potential next steps.

Background

The claims in this matter arise from a wildfire known as the “McKinney Fire” that occurred in in Siskiyou County, California on July 29, 2022. Plaintiffs filed suit on July 26, 2024 in the related action entitled Cloutman, et al v. PacifiCorp, et al, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 24CV014996. (Cloutman Complaint.) The Cloutman Action was consolidated with the instant matter on August 30, 2024, with the instant Bridges case serving as the lead case. (8-30-24 Minute Order in Cloutman Action.)

On October 11, 2024, Plaintiffs contracted to enter into the McKinney Fire Resolution Protocol. (King Decl. ISO Mot. to Enforce, ¶ 5-6, Exhs. 1-2 (the “Resolution Protocol”); Deland Joint Decl. ISO Opp., ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs’ then-counsel accepted a mediator’s proposal to resolve the claims of Plaintiffs and many other plaintiffs represented by their then-counsel. (King Decl., ¶¶ 8-11, Exhs. 4-7.) Mr. Deland accepted the settlement offer in June 2025. (Deland Joint Decl., ¶¶ 15-16.)

Several weeks later, Plaintiffs reviewed the final settlement agreement and disagreed with its terms. (Deland Joint Decl., ¶¶ 17-19.) Following Defendant’s refusal to remove the insurance forfeiture provision, Plaintiffs refused to sign the settlement agreement. (Id., ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs also terminated their attorney-client relationship with the attorney who negotiated the settlement on their behalf. (Ibid.)

Defendant now moves to enforce the settlement agreement reached pursuant to the mediator’s proposal and the form settlement agreement specified in the Resolution Protocol.

Motions to Seal

Defendant moves to seal various portions of its memorandum in support of its motion to enforce and the supporting declaration of Mr. Thomas B. King on the grounds that the motion involves

34-2022-00325257-CU-MT-GDS: Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) in Department 8B

information that is subject to a confidentiality agreement. While the redactions in Defendant’s motion and supporting papers are extensive, Defendant’s initial motion seeks to redact portions of its motion and portions of Exhibits 1, 3, 6, and 10. Specifically, Defendant maintains that it is only seeking to seal those portions that reflect the McKinney Fire Resolution Protocol (the “Resolution Protocol”) or the confidential settlement amount reached with Plaintiffs. (Defendant’s Mot. to Seal ISO Mot. to Enforce, p. 4:24-27.) Defendant is not opposed to the other redacted material becoming public if no motion to seal is filed. (Id., p. 5:7-15.) Defendant’s initial motion included two notices of lodging and multiple versions of Defendant’s memorandum and Mr. King’s supporting declaration.

Plaintiffs move to seal certain portions of their opposition and joint declaration in support thereof. (See Plaintiff’s Mot. to Seal.) Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions mirror Defendant’s insofar as Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of their opposition referring to the Resolution Protocol.

Finally, in connection with its reply, Defendant moves to seal portions of its reply brief that refer to the specific financial terms of the alleged settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant. (See Defendant’s Motion to Seal ISO Reply.)

In the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, the Court combines its rulings on these motions into one Tentative Ruling.

The “court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (CRC rule 2.550(d).)

A record may not be sealed solely on the basis of the parties’ stipulation. (Id., rule 2.551(a).) Where the factual requirements are established by the moving party, the court must “[d]irect the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.” (Id., rule 2.551(e).)

Rule 2.551(b) provides that a “party that files or intends to file with the court, for the purposes of adjudication or to use at trial, records produced in discovery that are subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order, and does not intend to request to have the records sealed, must: (i) Lodge the unredacted records subject to the confidentiality agreement or protective order in the manner stated in (d); (ii) File copies of the documents in (i) that are redacted so that they do not disclose the contents of the records that are subject to the confidentiality agreement or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00325257-CU-MT-GDS: Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) in Department 8B

protective order; and (iii) Give written notice to the party that produced the records that the records lodged under (i) will be placed in the public court file unless that party files a timely motion or application to seal the records under this rule. (CRC rule 2.551(b)(3).)

Defendant argues that it has an overriding interest in protecting the confidentiality of the Resolution Protocol and the amount of Plaintiffs’ settlement because it is commercially sensitive information and Defendant would be prejudiced because it would suffer competitive harm if this information became known to its negotiation counterparties or the general public. (Defendant’s Mot. to Seal ISO Mot. to Enforce, pp. 3:25-4:18.) Defendant maintains that the requested sealing is narrowly tailored. (Id., pp. 4:19-5:6.)

Defendant’s initial motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant’s motion to seal as it relates to the Resolution Protocol, with the exception of Exhibit D, (King Decl., ¶5. Exh. 1) is GRANTED. Defendant’s request is also GRANTED as it relates to Exhibit 6, insofar as it reveals the settlements of other plaintiffs in the Cloutman Action.

Sealing these documents is appropriate because (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”

Based on Defendant’s second notice of lodging of a proposed lesser redacted version for public filing, it appears that Defendant does not seek to redact its memorandum or Exhibit 3 beyond references to the specific dollar amount allocated to Plaintiffs. In fact, the partially redacted versions include extensive discussion and quotations from the relevant portions of the Resolution Protocol and the Special Master’s decision. However, Defendant must confirm. If that is the case, it appears that Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions regarding the Resolution Protocol are unnecessary and Plaintiffs’ derivative motion should be denied.

Assuming that the only proposed redactions are to the negotiated settlement amount with the Delands, the Court is not persuaded that redaction is reasonable or appropriate, particularly where Defendant seeks to enter judgment consistent with the terms of the purported settlement. The Court cannot envision an effective money judgment that would not disclose the settlement amount and Defendant does not proffer one with its moving papers. Court records are presumed public (see Rule 2.550(c)) and by seeking enforcement, Defendant puts the terms, including the financial term, at issue. Thus, Defendant’s motion to seal is DENIED as it relates to the specific dollar amount of Plaintiffs’ purported settlement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00325257-CU-MT-GDS: Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) in Department 8B

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part on the same grounds, subject to the Defendant’s clarification regarding the scope of its proposed redactions regarding the Resolution Protocol.

Defendant’s second motion to seal is DENIED because it only seeks to seal the specific dollar amount of the settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 2.551(b)(6), the Parties must notify the Court within 10 days of this Order if the materials may be filed unsealed. “If the moving party does not notify the court within 10 days of the order, the clerk must (1) return the lodged record to the moving party if it is in paper form or (2) permanently delete the lodged record if it is in electronic form.” (CRC Rule, 2.551(b)(6).) Given the nature of the information at issue and Defendant’s stated interests, the Court would permit Defendant to withdraw the motion to avoid public disclosure of the settlement amount.

If Defendant intends to allow any of the materials it currently seeks to seal to be filed unsealed, Defendant shall prepare partially redacted copies of its memorandum and Mr. King’s declaration for public filing, consistent with this Court’s order on the motions to seal.

Because Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is derivative of Defendant’s position, the Court assumes Plaintiffs will consent to the filing of their unredacted opposition and supporting joint declaration. However, Plaintiffs must notify the Court pursuant to Rule 2.551(b)(6).

While the Court will afford the Parties the requisite 10 days, the Court expects the Parties to be prepared to discuss their respective positions at the hearing.

Motion to Enforce

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 664.6 provides: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (CCP, § 664.6(a).)

The Court’s inquiry in ruling on a motion for judgment pursuant to section 664.6 is generally limited to a determination of whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement, and the material terms thereof. (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn.4; see also Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-83.) “Although a judge hearing a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00325257-CU-MT-GDS: Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) in Department 8B

section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment [Citations], nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810 [emphasis original].)

If Defendant allows the settlement amount to be disclosed, the Court is inclined to grant Defendant’s motion to enforce. The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoned analysis of Special Master the Honorable Peter D. Litchman (Retired). (King Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 3.) Plaintiffs opted into the Resolution Protocol, which by its own terms provides that: (1) it is enforceable pursuant to CCP section 664.6; (2) the Exhibit D form settlement agreement shall be used unless the Parties agree otherwise and any proposed changes must be raised before mediation or they are deemed waived; and (3) all disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of the settlement protocol including the settlement agreement and the closed claim letter requirement, be submitted to the jurisdiction of the Special Master, whose decisions would be final. (Resolution Protocol, §§ F(3), N(1), N(7), O(1).)

The Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs’ acceptance of the Resolution Protocol, coupled with the email correspondence expressing an intent to enter into a global resolution and affirming the specific allocation to Plaintiffs constitute an enforceable agreement, incorporating the agreed upon terms of the form settlement agreement. (King Decl., ¶¶ 8-11, Exh. 4-7; Deland Decl., ¶¶ 15-16.)

There is no evidence to suggest that Plaintiffs or their former Counsel objected to any terms contained with the form settlement agreement before mediation. To the extent Plaintiffs have issues with their former Counsel’s handling of the settlement negotiations and whether he acted outside the bounds of their consent or the rules of professional responsibility, those issues are not properly before this Court, nor do they warrant denial of Defendant’s motion to enforce.

Plaintiffs’ other arguments regarding the scope of the Special Master’s authority, Resolution Protocol interpretation, and unconscionability are unpersuasive. While the resolution did not occur at the non-binding mediation, the Court is persuaded that it occurred at the non-binding mediation stage, facilitated by the Special Master who oversaw the Parties’ specific mediation and the Resolution Protocol more broadly. (See King Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7, Exh.1, § A.3, Exh. 3, pp. 2-3 [describing settlement negotiations].) Plaintiffs’ suggestion that their former attorney, the Special Master, and Defendant “threw” the Resolution Protocol “right out the window” is not supported by the evidence.

The provisions quoted above plainly gave the Special Master the power to adjudicate the Parties’ dispute, particularly as to the closed claim requirement at the heart of Plaintiffs’ objection. (Resolution Protocol, §§ F(3), N(1), N(7), O(1).) As to that specific dispute, the Resolution

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00325257-CU-MT-GDS: Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) in Department 8B

Protocol provides that as “part of any settlement,” the plaintiff must provide a closed claim letter and that if plaintiff objects to doing so and there is an impasse “the Special Master has the sole discretion to resolve the matter and the Special Master’s decision is binding” on the Parties. (Id., § N(7) [emphasis added].)

Finally, nothing here evidences unconscionability, such that the Court should refuse to enforce the settlement agreement entirely. “Unconscionability has both a ‘procedural’ and a ‘substantive’ element, the former focusing on ‘oppression’ or ‘surprise’ due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on ‘overly harsh’ or ‘one-sided’ results. The prevailing view is that [procedural and substantive unconscionability] must both be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability.

But they need not be present in the same degree ... [T]he more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.” (Peng v. First Republic Bank (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 1462, 1469 [internal citations and quotations omitted].) Here, the Resolution Protocol was a voluntary, opt-in agreement. Once they opted-in, Plaintiffs also had the opportunity to object to certain provisions, such as the closed claim letter requirement.

Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate oppression or surprise as Mr. Deland was an experienced California attorney and the terms were not hidden. That Plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of their options to object within the time period specified does not render the Resolution Protocol or the subsequent settlement unconscionable.

Thus, the Court is inclined to GRANT Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement in the specific amount allocated to Plaintiffs and pursuant to the terms set forth in Exhibit D to the Resolution Protocol.

Disposition

Before resolving the Parties’ motions to seal and Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement, the Court requires additional information from the Parties.

Assuming the Court adopts the Tentative Ruling and denies (in whole and/or in part) the Parties’ motions to seal, the Court continues the hearing on Defendant’s motion to enforce to September 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. to allow the Parties the opportunity to notify the Court if (1) the materials may be filed unsealed or (2) Defendant is withdrawing the motion and the lodged materials should be returned and/or destroyed.

If Defendant withdraws the motion, the Court will vacate the continued hearing date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00325257-CU-MT-GDS: Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) in Department 8B

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CCP, § 1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) scheduled for 09/04/2026 is continued to 09/18/2026 at 09:00 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse.

The Court has ordered the Parties’ appearance. The Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Parties requesting services of a court reporter may arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. The list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore is available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Moving Counsel is directed to notice all parties of this order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00325257-CU-MT-GDS: Beverly U. Bridges vs. Pacificorp 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Enforce the Parties’ Resolution Protocol Agreement and to Enter Judgment According to The Terms of a Settlement Agreement with James and Elizabeth Deland (Case No. 24CV014996 Cloutman vs. Pacificorp) in Department 8B

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/complex-civil-cases.aspx. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.