III. CSD's Response

CSD opposes this motion. CSD explains that: (1) the instant investigation concerns Edison's compliance with the California safety and maintenance requirements listed in the OII; (2) Edison has the information which relates to the incidents listed in the OII; and (3) Edison should not be entitled to expand this investigation far beyond its scope. CSD believes that Ordering Paragraph 4 of the OII appropriately prevents Edison from obtaining discovery of irrelevant information beyond the investigation's scope.

CSD also argues that statues and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) prevent the disclosure of the requested material because the prejudicial nature of this material outweighs its possible relevance. (See Evidence Code § 352 and Rule 58.) CSD also cites Pub. Util. Code § 583 and Commission General Order (GO) 66-C, claiming that some of the requested material is confidential and might place other utilities at a competitive disadvantage if released. CSD believes that the deliberative process privilege and the official information privilege prevent such disclosure. (See Government Code § 6254 Evidence Code § 1040.) CSD also objects to the procedure Edison used to challenge or amend a portion of the OII.

Edison claims that many of the privileges invoked by CSD require a balancing of interests after specifically delineating the privileged information, and argues that CSD did not perform the necessary analysis.