Judge Rules BPA Intentionally Destroyed Evidence in Holiday Farm Fire Case

A federal judge has found that the Bonneville Power Administration intentionally destroyed evidence connected to the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire, issuing a 27-page ruling that imposes financial sanctions and creates an evidentiary burden that could haunt the agency at trial.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai concluded in a February 26 Opinion and Order that BPA "willfully spoiled evidence because it moved trees of interest and allowed its contractors to materially disturb the ignition site without preserving evidence it knew it should, and could, preserve in reasonable anticipation of litigation." The ruling means that missing or destroyed evidence from the ignition site "shall be construed against" BPA as the case proceeds, allowing the court to infer at trial that the destroyed evidence reflected poorly on the agency. Kasubhai also issued a pointed warning about the agency's broader conduct: "this Court will not tolerate such insolence."

The case stems from the Holiday Farm Fire, which swept through Lane and Linn counties during the 2020 Labor Day weekend, burning roughly 173,000 acres. OPB reported the fire destroyed more than 500 homes and killed one person; reporting by Lookout Eugene-Springfield and the Register-Guard put the destruction at more than 700 structures. The fire was one of more than a dozen that burned across Oregon that weekend.

More than 200 people and businesses, including fire victims, their insurers and timber companies operating in the area, have sued BPA alongside Eugene Water and Electric Board and Lane Electric Co-operative, alleging the utilities failed to maintain electrical equipment that may have ignited the blaze. Among the specific allegations is that a "Fall-Into Danger Tree" tipped onto a power line at one of two ignition sites. A U.S. Forest Service report implicating all three utilities was not made public until lawyers uncovered it during the discovery process.

Kasubhai's order documents a pattern of obstruction beyond the destroyed physical evidence. When plaintiffs' attorneys sought a deposition from a BPA representative, the agency designated a low-level employee who answered "I don't know" to nearly every question. The court then ordered a second deposition, and BPA was also found to have produced thousands of irrelevant pages in response to document requests. Kasubhai ordered BPA to produce a new, qualified witness capable of actually answering questions on the agency's behalf, and to pay attorneys' fees covering the first deposition, its redo, and the time other parties' attorneys spent pursuing the sanctions the court ultimately granted.

Critically, the ruling is a discovery sanction, not a final determination of liability. But the adverse inference Kasubhai authorized means that any ambiguities arising from BPA's destruction of evidence "will be drawn against the United States" as litigation continues toward trial. EWEB and LEC have sought to shift blame toward BPA in their own arguments, a dynamic the sanctions ruling may now complicate.

BPA, a federal agency that supplies roughly one-third of the electricity across the Pacific Northwest, declined to comment. A source identified in court reporting only as Robertson expressed cautious optimism after the ruling, saying he hoped the federal government "will start cooperating in the discovery process and hopefully resolve this case on behalf of the hundreds of victims of this terrible fire.