The surviving family members of the 34 individuals who died aboard the Conception are battling the U.S. government to examine what remains of the batteries and chargers widely thought to have caused the fire. It’s a race against time, as they have until 2024 to analyze the evidence and identify the manufacturers implicated in the devastating fire on Labor Day, 2019. The government says they must wait until the conclusion of the criminal trial of Captain Jerry Boylan, which is currently set for October.
The cause of the fire aboard the Conception remains the subject of speculation. Both the National Transportation Safety Board and the Coast Guard reports are inconclusive, because they have not been allowed to examine the evidence the FBI is holding for Boylan’s trial. Sources familiar with the case believe the trial is expected to focus on the captain’s habitual failure to organize roving night patrols. A recent Los Angeles Times story reported that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigation suggested the fire may have ignited in a plastic trash can on the deck.
John Hillsman, whose firm McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky represents a number of the plaintiffs, cast doubt on the story. The ATF simulated wind to send the trash-can fire into the salon, he said, but the night of September 2, 2019, was very foggy and without wind.
A number of complex lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts in Los Angeles. The court documents cover the three-day Labor Day holiday, which was intended as a diving adventure for an international group of SCUBA divers. Among them were photographers and ocean enthusiasts; couples and family groups, including one celebrating a 17th birthday; and a young woman in a budding romance with another crewmember. Around 3 a.m. a fire had blazed out of control within a half-hour’s time while everyone on the ship was asleep.
One lawsuit was filed against the Coast Guard, charging it had inadequately inspected the Conception. This suit was cited by the U.S. attorney as one of the reasons not to hand over the evidence, as was the fear that the integrity of hard evidence would be compromised.
The U.S. attorney stated that requests for the agencies’ reports would reveal too much about investigative techniques. An email in August seemed to seek a compromise, looking for a more limited set of evidence “most important to your clients.” It also asked why the handover could not wait until after trial, which at the time was set for September. The case against Boylan has apparently had its own evidentiary disputes that have delayed the trial.
For their part, the plaintiffs argue ATF has routinely provided such evidence in other cases and that the prosecutors had no intention of using the evidence in Boylan’s criminal trial.
Hillsman bristled as he explained why the plaintiffs had the right to examine the evidence: “Look at the Deepwater Horizon,” he said. The government recovered material from the depths that was used in its criminal and civil cases, including a civil case brought by the Coast Guard against BP for environmental cleanup. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Hillsman said. “The Coast Guard was the civil litigant in that case, and we are in this case.”
The U.S. attorneys are to answer the complaint this month. As per DOJ policy, the attorneys would not comment on ongoing litigation.