1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-oOoIn Re:

PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC 

GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Debtors.

_____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-30088

Chapter 11

San Francisco, California

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

9:30 AM

[2048] MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

STAY FILED BY WENDY NATHAN.

[2171] APPLICATION PURSUANT 

TO 11 U.S.C. SECTIONS 327(A) 

AND 328(A) AND FED. R. BANKR. 

P. 2014(A) AND 2016 FOR 

AUTHORITY TO RETAIN AND 

EMPLOY KPMG LLP AS 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, RISK, 

AND LEGAL SUPPORT CONSULTANTS 

TO THE DEBTORS NUNC PRO TUNC 

TO PETITION DATE.

[2193] APPLICATION OF DEBTORS 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. SECTION 

327(E) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 

2014(A) AND 2016 FOR 

AUTHORITY TO RETAIN MORRISON 

& FOERSTER LLP AS SPECIAL 

REGULATORY COUNSEL FOR THE

DEBTORS EFFECTIVE AS OF THE 

PETITION DATE.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DENNIS MONTALI

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Debtors: TOBIAS S. KELLER, ESQ.

Keller & Benvenutti LLP

650 California Street

Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415)796-0709

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 1 of

30
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

For the Debtors: HONG-AN N. TRAN, ESQ.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

201 Redwood Shores Parkway

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

(650)802-3098

For Wendy Nathan: MATTHEW J. OLSON, ESQ.

Macdonald Fernandez LLP

221 Sansome Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415)362-0449

For Wendy Nathan: SETH I. ROSENBERG, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Emergent LLP

5 Third Street

Suite 1000

San Francisco, CA 94103

(415)894-9284

For High Speed Rail 

Authority and California 

Air Resources Board:

PAUL J. PASCUZZI, ESQ.

(Telephonically)

Felderstein Fitzgerald Willoughby 

& Pascuzzi LLP

400 Capitol Mall

Suite 1750

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916)329-7400

Court Recorder: JANE GALVANI

 United States Bankruptcy

Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Transcriber: PENINA WOLICKI

 eScribers, LLC

7227 N. 16th Street

Suite #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

(973)406-2250

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; 

transcript provided by transcription service.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 2 of

30
3

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2019, 9:31 AM

-oOo-

(Call to order of the Court.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

IN UNISON: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Please be seated.

THE CLERK: Matter of PG&E Corporation.

THE COURT: Mr. Keller, good morning.

MR. KELLER: Good morning, Your Honor. I think we 

have a mercifully brief calendar, knock on wood.

Unless the Court has any comments, we'll just dive 

right into the agenda today.

THE COURT: I not only have no comments on two of 

them, on MoFo and KPMG, I'm satisfied they're in order. As 

long as I get a confirmation from counsel for the State of 

California -- the Resources Board that they're satisfied with 

the form of order --

MR. KELLER: I don't know if they're present here 

today. They have signed off on the form of order that was 

submitted.

THE COURT: Well, let's see, on the telephone, is Mr. 

Pascuzzi on the phone?

MR. PASCUZZI: Yes, Your Honor. Good morning. Paul 

Pascuzzi, Felderstein Fitzgerald Willoughby & Pascuzzi, cocounsel with the California Attorney General's Office, for the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 3 of

30
4

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

High Speed Rail Authority and the Air Resources Board. And we 

have signed off on the proposed order. And we appreciate KPMG 

working with us to resolve the issues.

THE COURT: So Mr. Keller, then, unless there's anyone 

else in court or on the phone that wants to be heard on those 

two applications, we don't have to waste any more time on it.

MR. KELLER: We will upload orders, Your Honor, and I 

will turn the --

THE COURT: They'll both be approved as filed with the 

modifications. I'll look forward to seeing the orders.

MR. KELLER: Very good. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KELLER: I will turn the podium to An Tran, from 

Weil Gotshal, who'll be handling the relief from stay motion.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

Good morning.

MS. TRAN: Good morning, Your Honor. An Tran with 

Weil Gotshal, on behalf of the debtors. I'll be brief. So our 

office --

THE COURT: Wait. Let's see if we get -- let me get 

the debtors' (sic) counsel. 

Mr. Olson, are you here?

And then I'll let you speak.

MS. TRAN: Sure.

THE COURT: I didn't mean to cut you off. I just 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 4 of

30
5

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

wanted to get the appearances.

MR. OLSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Matt Olson for 

Wendy Nathan. And I believe Ms. Nathan's state court counsel 

is on the phone as well, Mr. Rosenberg.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. 

All right, counsel.

MR. ROSENBERG: Good morning, Your Honor. This is 

Seth Rosenberg appearing on CourtCall for plaintiff, Wendy 

Nathan, as well.

THE COURT: And what's -- tell me what the debtors --

no, from the debtor. I know what the issues are, Mr. Olson and 

Mr. Rosenberg. And I understand why they're here again. But 

tell me what your reply to this argument is, please?

MS. TRAN: Yeah. And our opposition papers and Your 

Honor's tentative ruling and the May 12th memorandum decision 

on the Gelman and Valero motions, sufficiently set forth why 

Ms. Gelman's (sic) relief from stay should not be granted 

today.

As Your Honor is fully aware and has recognized, more 

time is needed for the debtors to attend to the litany of 

issues in its restructuring efforts before having to resume 

defensive tort actions such as the Nathan litigation.

And specifically, to quote Your Honor's May 12th 

decision on the Gelmans' motion, which is substantially similar 

to the Nathan motion that's at issue today, there's too much at 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 5 of

30
6

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

stake in needing to craft the contours of the reorganization 

than to require a debtor this soon to tackle specific 

individual cases.

And so if Your Honor is not inclined to deny 

claimant's request for relief from stay today, the debtors 

respectfully request and ask that Your Honor adopt the 

tentative ruling and continue to the September 10th hearing.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Olson, I -- again, I thought 

you would probably accept my ruling, but you didn't, so tell me 

what's wrong with it and why I should make a change here, given 

the history and where we are.

MR. OLSON: Yes, Your Honor. I think at bottom the 

issue, as has been framed, is really why is relief from stay 

necessary now. 

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. OLSON: And the issue is --

THE COURT: Compared to, really, not too far in the 

future.

MR. OLSON: Yes, Your Honor. And I appreciate that.

The difference is that the state court has instructed 

the other parties in this litigation to participate in 

mediation in the next few months, before the September proposed 

hearing date. And given that this is the last in a series of 

five lawsuits, claims about the same utility box in the 

sidewalk in Oakland, the prior four having been resolved preCase: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 6 of

30
7

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

petition --

THE COURT: All consensually?

MR. OLSON: All consensually, all in which PG&E 

accepted and paid eighty to one hundred percent of the damages, 

it makes -- it makes sense to us to resolve this all now, not 

put this off.

And while Ms. Nathan will, of course, because of the 

bankruptcy laws, wait to enforce her claim, pursuant to a plan, 

the real issue is that everyone else is ready now. And waiting 

for the claims allowance process really doesn't do a whole lot 

for us, because all we're going to end up doing is going back 

to the state court anyways, because mandatory abstention almost 

certainly applies here.

THE COURT: Well, your motion -- your motion looks for 

a little of everything. But even mandatory abstention still 

has relief from stay gating issues, don't you think?

Mandatory abstention, if it applies here, isn't a free 

pass for relief from stay, right?

MR. OLSON: No, Your Honor. It --

THE COURT: I mean, do you agree with that or disagree 

with that?

MR. OLSON: Well, I think mandatory abstention is -- I 

think the cases in the Ninth Circuit recognize that mandatory 

abstention can be cause for relief from stay.

THE COURT: Well, but the reverse is true too. A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 7 of

30
8

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

reason to deny relief from stay doesn't -- isn't overtaken or 

overridden by a theoretical entitlement to mandatory 

abstention.

MR. OLSON: I understand that, Your Honor. And I 

agree with that.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. OLSON: I think the issue here is if the claims 

allowance process is only going to -- is likely to end up back 

in state court anyways, why not settle this now, resolve it 

now? It's not going to take that much of the debtors' 

attention away from the contours of a plan.

THE COURT: Well, that may be true, and I -- if you 

said that the state court had ordered mediation already before 

September, I might have focused on that, but I don't think you 

said that in the paper. Did I miss that in the motion?

MR. OLSON: I believe we addressed it.

THE COURT: Well, show me where that is. Again, I 

don't know if it'll change my mind, but I thought I reviewed 

the situation to see what the difference was.

I mean, I'm -- let me make sure we're clear here. 

This is not directed at Ms. Nathan or making light of her 

injury any more than it was Ms. Gelman's or any other of the 

many people -- not fire victims, but other victims of other 

torts, whether PG&E is or may be found liable. It's still 

their injury and it's important. And it's important to me.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 8 of

30
9

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

But am I -- let's go back to my question. Did I 

overlook that there's a mandatory mediation scheduled?

MR. OLSON: Your Honor, it's in the motion at docket 

2048 at page 3 line 6. "The Superior Court has ordered the 

parties" -- and "parties" here are referring to the non-PG&E 

parties -- "to participate in mediation before August 30th."

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I'm not finding it. Line 6 --

page 6?

MR. OLSON: Page 3, line 6.

THE COURT: Okay. Try again. Small print. I get 

small print from you, for some reason, not the large print.

MR. OLSON: I apologize, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, you don't have to apologize.

Well, have you explored the possibility of talking to 

counsel about just agreeing to the mediation?

MR. OLSON: We asked the debtor to agree to --

agreeing just to do the mediation, and the debtor was not 

inclined to agree to that.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, let me -- well, let's 

pretend that I know what's going to happen. I presume the 

mediation will occur on one particular day in one particular 

place in front of one particular judicial officer or -- and 

there will be a back-and-forth about the issues. Or is there 

more to that? Is there more depositions, more discovery, more 

testimony? Is it going to be a quick type of mediation or is

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 9 of

30
10

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it going to be sort of a pre-trial something-or-other? Or do 

you know?

MR. OLSON: My understanding of it, and --

MR. ROSENBERG: Your Honor --

MR. OLSON: -- Mr. Rosenberg can --

MR. ROSENBERG: -- this is Seth Rosenberg appearing on 

CourtCall. I think I can address that, being the state court 

attorney.

We're ready to go for mediation with no additional 

discovery, nothing else is needed. Because of the four prior 

actions, we have all that we need evidentiary-wise with respect 

to PG&E.

I would expect it would be exactly as you said, Your 

Honor. One day, one judicial officer, a half-day, that 

initially would be -- the amount would be agreed upon.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ROSENBERG: And I think there will be another 

solution that we would seek is just maybe just have the stay 

lifted just for mediation and then if that's unsuccessful, then 

we could go back to where we were and revisit the issue later. 

But I think that would be a compromise that we would be 

accept -- we would find acceptable.

THE COURT: Mr. Rosenberg, again, there's so many 

firms and cases to keep track of, and I don't remember 

specifically. The company -- PG&E has other outside counsel in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 10

of 30
11

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the state court suit in this matter, not the principal 

bankruptcy counsel, right?

MR. ROSENBERG: That's correct, Your Honor. And we 

worked on multiple of the occasions with that outside counsel, 

and have good familiarity and relationships with those guys.

THE COURT: Well, do any of the lawyers here -- any of 

you, on either side, believe that the automatic stay is 

implicated just to have a mediation? 

Does the debtor believe that the stay is implicated? 

I mean, I can go out in the hall, if I were a lawyer -- if I 

sent you out in the hall to see if you could cut a deal with 

somebody, and you came back and said we've got an agreement, 

does that violate the stay?

MS. TRAN: Your Honor, to the extent that it's a 

court-ordered mediation, and requires from the estate, then we 

would say that yes, it does.

THE COURT: But what if it isn't a court-ordered 

mediation? What if the lawyer for the debtor -- a lawyer for 

the debtor says to a lawyer for the claimant, look, we might 

put this to bed if your client would agree to a claim of X 

dollars, and the other side says yeah, we can live with that; 

done. Claim liquidated. End of story.

I don't think the automatic stay, if it's implicated 

at all, is an impediment. Do you think that that's a problem?

MS. TRAN: We would agree if it's -- if it's not a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 11

of 30
12

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

court-ordered.

THE COURT: Well, here I mean -- but I mean, what if 

it isn't court-ordered, but I tell you to go do it anyway? 

Somebody ought to go to that mediation -- I mean, look, let me 

try it a different way. And this is not focused on Ms. 

Nathan's situation or what Mr. Olson or Mr. Rosenberg told me.

I believe debtors' counsel have counted somewhere 

along the line around a hundred claims that are in the pipeline 

somewhere that are not the wildfire claims, they're not 

multimillion dollar claims arising out of a refinery meltdown 

like at Valero. They are people like the Gelmans and Ms. 

Nathan and other people who, but for the bankruptcy that was 

precipitated by the wildfires, would have had their day in 

court in the run-of-the-mill -- if that's a term that can be 

used, which I don't mean to say it that way, because I think 

that term is misused, and I've commented on others' misuse of 

the term, because it's not run-of-the-mill for the victim.

But my point is this. PG&E filed bankruptcy for some 

very, very significant reasons. And had those reasons not 

precipitated the bankruptcy, cases like Ms. Nathan's, in the 

superior court, whether they go to mediation or go to a jury 

trial or go to a court trial, they would be business as usual.

And the question is when do we get back to business as 

usual of the utility defending and winning, where appropriate, 

or losing tort claims that came about by just the -- what goes 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 12

of 30
13

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

with the territory when you run a multibillion dollar utility? 

The answer is, like any other big company, whether it be a 

delivery company or a retail store, or a chain of grocery 

stores -- I mean, chains of grocery stores have slip-and-fall 

cases, and power companies have people who have tripped on 

power boxes.

And so I was persuaded and have been persuaded to 

maintain the status quo. And that was my thinking in the 

Gelman case, and that was my thinking in the tentative ruling 

on Ms. Nathan's case. But to me, it's one of those thing where 

to get to the point where Ms. Nathan at least knows two things: 

if she has an agreement that she's entitled to X dollars and 

she knows that X minus whatever she recovers from other 

defendants will be an allowed claim in the PG&E bankruptcy, 

that's not a huge burden. It doesn't interfere with the 

reorganization. I doubt that it has any significant impact on 

the more enormously complex issue of determining who are the 

fire victims, what are their claims, where's the liability, and 

so on.

And my problem is, if I stick with my tentative, which 

puts an imposition on Ms. Nathan and her counsel -- not the end 

of the world -- I'm sure that the mediation and everything else 

could be done in September, if it could be done in August. But 

the question is when do I decide it's time for the utility to 

get back to running its business as usual, which includes 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 13

of 30
14

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

dealing with the run-of-the-mill ordinary-course-of-business 

kind of tort liability?

And so I'm thinking out loud. I'm not asking you, 

counsel, to give me an answer. But I'm asking if you can give 

me why it isn't appropriate to start letting people like Ms. 

Nathan and others have at least the process for liquidating 

their claims, which are not going to be anywhere like the vast 

amount of liquidation analysis that's going to take place with 

the fire claims?

MS. TRAN: And this case is substantially similar to 

the Gelman litigation.

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TRAN: There's concerns about opening the 

floodgates and having other similar claims come rather than go 

through the claims process. And as you stated specifically in 

your decision on the Gelman motion, it is still too early in 

these complex reorganization cases to force the debtors to 

defend the claims of movants in two different courts while at 

the same time attempting to make progress toward the goal of a 

successful reorganization. It is much far more preferable to 

make progress towards the goal before the individual claims can 

be dealt with.

And you had continued that hearing until --

THE COURT: No, I know. I know that.

MS. TRAN: -- September. And --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 14

of 30
15

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: And I haven't -- I'm going to go back and 

revisit that. But I'm asking you to tell me, well, what's --

let's pretend it's September. What's different? What's going 

to happen between now and September.

Again, I don't -- I'm not here to beat on you for 

figuring out how to deal with hundreds and thousands of tort 

claims -- of fire victim claims. I'm asking you to tell me

what's going to happen for maybe a hundred everyday, course-ofbusiness type tort claims that happen when people trip on 

concrete boxes holding power equipment or all the other kinds 

of things that are -- PG&E trucks, unfortunately, might bump 

into people out on the street. That's the course of business 

stuff.

MS. TRAN: Sure. And as you're aware, based on our 

exclusivity motion, there's quite a bit going on in the 

restructuring.

THE COURT: Right.

MS. TRAN: And between now and September, we can't, 

for sure, know exactly what's going to happen and how we deal 

with these specific claims, but that is time for us to 

potentially maybe -- like you said -- talk to other claimants 

and potentially get in -- engage in settlement discussion. 

Essentially that there's nothing different from this case than 

the Gelman case and the other hundred cases that are very 

similar tort claims.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 15

of 30
16

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

And so to allow --

THE COURT: Well, but it's -- it's no more than about 

a hundred; isn't that correct?

MS. TRAN: About a hundred, yeah.

THE COURT: About a hundred, right? And again, I'm 

not -- it was a coincidence that Ms. Gelman's situation and the 

Valero situation were on the same calendar. That's where the 

similarity ended.

And so I'm really looking at Ms. Gelman in the 

rearview mirror and Ms. Nathan today and Mr. X next week for 

these kinds of things that don't seem to need much more than 

somebody agreeing on a dollar amount.

I mean, it almost takes no scientific or anything --

any other kind of methodology that might be involved in 

estimating the vast fire claims to figure out what is the -- to 

use a pejorative -- not a pejorative, but kind of a common term 

in the PI world -- I mean, what's the going rate for the kind 

of injury that Ms. Nathan suffered.

And people that are far more experienced than I am are 

able to make a predicted estimate of likelihood of liability 

and likelihood of outcomes for damages. And I don't know 

whether it's three figures or five figures or six figures, but 

there is a dollar amount, consensually, that I suspect that Ms. 

Nathan and her counsel would accept and the debtor would agree. 

And it would be end of story, allowed claim.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 16

of 30
17

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

And then she might -- unfortunately, she might have to 

wait a long, long time to get paid. But that's unfortunate, 

but that's not the case.

So I'll go back to the question of mediation. So 

there is -- again, I don't remember the specifics of Ms. 

Gelman's case. I don't need to. Here, in Ms. Nathan's case, 

we have outside counsel. We have that counsel familiar with 

the coincidence of four other instances of people being injured 

at the same site in Oakland. And we have a superior court that 

said show up in August and try to mediate. And if Ms. Nathan 

says I want five million dollars, I suspect that somebody on 

the debtors' side will say sorry, you're not going to get five 

million dollars. If Ms. Nathan says I'd like some other figure 

that makes good economic sense, someone with client authority 

will say we can live with that, shake hands, sign a simple 

settlement agreement, and we're done.

So why is that an imposition on anyone at all? That's 

my question. So I'm asking a rhetorical question. If you 

don't have an answer, you don't have it. I'm not going to yell 

at you. But that's why I have to think, well, why not try to 

mediate this claim; what's the harm?

MS. TRAN: And Your Honor, to the extent that you 

accept -- or that you adopt the tentative to continue the 

hearing till September 30th, I think that that's something that 

the debtors can negotiate or talk to counsel for Ms. Nathan 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 17

of 30
18

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

regarding the possibility of a settlement. 

But to grant relief from stay and forcing the debtors 

to engage in a court-ordered mediation is an imposition on the 

estate and --

THE COURT: What's the difference? Suppose the 

superior court had not ordered mediation, but I know and at 

least the local counsel knew that that's the normal expectation 

in the superior court in Oakland? Again, it may be. I just 

don't know.

It's certainly an expectation in this court when we 

have settlement negotiations on the things that we do. And so 

without trying to formalize it, if I said to the debtor --

debtors' special counsel who handles this defense, why can't 

you go over to Oakland on August such-and-such a date and meet 

with Mr. Rosenberg and his client and your client and see if 

you can settle the case? It seems like the world's easiest 

thing.

Again, it doesn't mean that the company has to give 

away something it believes it shouldn't be giving away. 

There's no penalty for not settling. The question is, isn't 

there a benefit, another claim out of the way, to get it 

settled?

Again, you don't have to answer this. I'm just 

telling you what my thinking is. And so I'm -- I don't want to 

get hung up on opening floodgates, but I have to be honest: if 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 18

of 30
19

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

we had another tort claimant in Ms. Nathan's situation, when 

all we have is limited relief at this point, I don't know why I 

wouldn't do it.

So you know what? I'll stick with the tentative with 

one variation. To the extent that anybody believes an order is 

necessary, I will grant limited relief from stay to Ms. Nathan 

so that she can sit across the table with the proper lawyer 

representing the utility and that lawyer's client, for purposes 

of a mediation along the lines Mr. Rosenberg said.

And what that means is that maybe in August, Ms. 

Nathan will agree to an amount and the utility will agree to an 

amount, and that's the end of the problem, and we don't have to 

have a further hearing in September.

But this is another way of saying that by September, 

when -- well, let me clarify that. If there's no agreement in 

August, there's no agreement. There's no penalty. No one's 

going to be criticized. But come September, when Ms. Nathan's 

case is back on the calendar and Ms. Gelman's is, and who knows 

who else's is, I have to have a better sense as to what the 

utility is going to do to take care of this category of claims, 

at least for allowance purposes.

And I'll concede the point. Everyone's case is going 

to be a little bit different. But this case sounds like it's 

much easier to try to get it resolved. And the other -- the 

next one might be more difficult. So with that in mind I'll 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 19

of 30
20

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

say limited relief from stay for purposes of mediation to try 

to do it under these circumstances.

So I'm going to take Mr. Rosenberg's representation 

that this would be no more than one day, with all the --

everything is prepared. And all we have to do is have the 

debtors' litigation counsel and a client representative do 

whatever the superior court expects of litigants to do, the way 

that counsel and the client would be expected to participate, 

had there been no bankruptcy.

And if the debtor and Ms. Nathan reach an agreement, 

to me, that's not only good for them, it's good for the 

process, because it means we've used the system without a huge 

imposition. It doesn't upset the orderly course of 

administrating the case. And it also, perhaps, gets one claim 

resolved.

And to the extent that there may be multiple claims 

that are more like Ms. Nathan's and less like some of the 

unliquidated, highly emotional, fire claims, it may be that 

there's a methodology to have a format grid or settlement model 

to fit the other ninety-nine of the hundred that are on this 

list, if you follow me.

So, okay. So that's a long way of saying I'm going to 

depart from the tentative for that limited purpose.

Mr. Olson, you need to draft something with debtors' 

counsel's agreement on this for a form of order so that -- so 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 20

of 30
21

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the lawyer going to participate in the mediation, and more 

importantly, the settlement judge, understands that the 

bankruptcy court has authorized this process. Nobody is 

violating the stay. There's no rules. The bankruptcy court is 

not ordering that there be a settlement. The bankruptcy court 

is authorizing and directing, if you will, an attempt to settle 

in accordance with the normal processes of the Alameda Superior 

Court.

If there's no settlement, the motion for relief from 

stay is continued on schedule to the September calendar. And 

if you come back to me in September and say we didn't get the 

case settled, we'd like to go to trial, I'll listen to the 

other side, and it may be that it won't happen. I can't 

promise you that.

So this is perhaps an invitation to Ms. Nathan, also, 

to consider compromising and getting this thing out of the way. 

Okay?

MR. OLSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that acceptable? Any questions about 

that?

MS. TRAN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all for your --

MR. ROSENBERG: No, Your Honor. This is Seth 

Rosenberg. I just wanted to say thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, thanks very much.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 21

of 30
22

PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas And Electric Co.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

So Mr. Keller, I think that's it for our calendar, 

right?

MR. KELLER: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks very much. See you next 

time.

(Whereupon these proceedings were concluded at 9:58 AM)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 22

of 30
23

I N D E X

RULINGS: PAGE LINE

Application to retain KPMG LLP, approved. 4 9

Application to retain Morrison & Foerster, 4 9

approved.

Relief from stay is granted to the limited 19 5

extent of allowing for mediation, to 

the extent mediation is affected by the 

automatic stay.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 23

of 30
24

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, Penina Wolicki, certify that the foregoing transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings.

________________________________________ 

/s/ PENINA WOLICKI, CET-569

eScribers

7227 N. 16th Street, Suite #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

Date: June 12, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 24

of 30
PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

June 11, 2019

A

able (1)

 16:20

abstention (6)

 7:12,15,17,22,24;8:3

accept (4)

 6:9;10:22;16:24;

 17:23

acceptable (2)

 10:22;21:19

accepted (1)

 7:4

accordance (1)

 21:7

across (1)

 19:7

actions (2)

 5:22;10:11

additional (1)

 10:9

address (1)

 10:7

addressed (1)

 8:16

administrating (1)

 20:14

adopt (2)

 6:6;17:23

again (11)

 5:12;6:8;8:17;9:10;

 10:23;15:5;16:5;17:5;

 18:8,18,23

agenda (1)

 3:12

agree (9)

 7:20;8:5;9:16,18;

 11:20,25;16:24;19:11,

 11

agreed (1)

 10:15

agreeing (3)

 9:15,17;16:12

agreement (7)

 11:12;13:12;17:16;

 19:15,16;20:10,25

Air (1)

 4:1

Alameda (1)

 21:7

allow (1)

 16:1

allowance (3)

 7:10;8:8;19:21

allowed (2)

 13:14;16:25

almost (2)

 7:12;16:13

along (2)

 12:8;19:9

amount (6)

 10:15;14:8;16:12,23;

 19:11,12

analysis (1)

 14:8

anyways (2)

 7:12;8:9

apologize (2)

 9:12,13

appearances (1)

 5:1

appearing (2)

 5:8;10:6

applications (1)

 4:6

applies (2)

 7:13,17

appreciate (2)

 4:2;6:19

appropriate (2)

 12:24;14:5

approved (1)

 4:9

argument (1)

 5:13

arising (1)

 12:10

around (1)

 12:8

attempt (1)

 21:6

attempting (1)

 14:19

attend (1)

 5:20

attention (1)

 8:11

Attorney (2)

 3:25;10:8

August (6)

 9:6;13:23;17:10;

 18:14;19:10,16

Authority (2)

 4:1;17:14

authorized (1)

 21:3

authorizing (1)

 21:6

automatic (2)

 11:7,23

aware (2)

 5:19;15:14

away (3)

 8:11;18:19,19

B

back (11)

 7:11;8:8;9:1;10:20;

 11:12;12:23;13:25;

 15:1;17:4;19:18;21:11

back-and-forth (1)

 9:23

bankruptcy (10)

 7:8;11:2;12:12,18,

 20;13:14;20:9;21:3,4,5

based (1)

 15:14

beat (1)

 15:5

bed (1)

 11:20

behalf (1)

 4:18

believes (2)

 18:19;19:5

benefit (1)

 18:21

better (1)

 19:19

big (1)

 13:2

bit (2)

 15:15;19:23

Board (2)

 3:16;4:1

both (1)

 4:9

bottom (1)

 6:12

box (1)

 6:24

boxes (2)

 13:6;15:10

brief (2)

 3:10;4:18

bump (1)

 15:11

burden (1)

 13:15

business (5)

 12:22,23;13:25;15:9,

 12

C

calendar (5)

 3:10;16:7;19:18;

 21:10;22:1

CALIFORNIA (3)

 3:1,16,25

Call (1)

 3:3

came (2)

 11:12;12:25

can (12)

 7:24;10:5,7;11:10,

 21;12:14;14:4,21;

 17:15,25;18:16;19:7

care (1)

 19:20

case (14)

 13:9,10;14:10;15:23,

 24;17:3,6,6;18:16;

 19:18,22,23;20:14;

 21:12

cases (7)

 6:3;7:23;10:24;

 12:20;13:5;14:17;

 15:24

category (1)

 19:20

cause (1)

 7:24

certainly (2)

 7:13;18:10

chain (1)

 13:3

chains (1)

 13:4

change (2)

 6:10;8:18

Circuit (1)

 7:23

circumstances (1)

 20:2

claim (8)

 7:8;11:20,22;13:14;

 16:25;17:21;18:21;

 20:14

claimant (2)

 11:19;19:1

claimants (1)

 15:21

claimant's (1)

 6:5

claims (23)

 6:24;7:10;8:7;12:8,9,

 10,25;13:18;14:7,9,14,

 15,18,21;15:7,7,9,20,

 25;16:15;19:20;20:16,

 18

clarify (1)

 19:15

clear (1)

 8:20

CLERK (1)

 3:7

client (7)

 11:20;17:14;18:15,

 15;19:8;20:6,8

co- (1)

 3:24

coincidence (2)

 16:6;17:8

commented (1)

 12:16

comments (2)

 3:11,13

common (1)

 16:16

companies (1)

 13:5

company (4)

 10:25;13:2,3;18:18

Compared (1)

 6:17

complex (2)

 13:17;14:17

compromise (1)

 10:21

compromising (1)

 21:16

concede (1)

 19:22

concerns (1)

 14:13

concluded (1)

 22:6

concrete (1)

 15:10

confirmation (1)

 3:15

consensually (3)

 7:2,3;16:23

consider (1)

 21:16

continue (2)

 6:7;17:23

continued (2)

 14:23;21:10

contours (2)

 6:1;8:11

Corporation (1)

 3:7

counsel (20)

 3:15,25;4:21;5:3,6;

 9:15;10:25;11:2,4;

 12:7;13:21;14:4;16:24;

 17:7,7,25;18:7,13;20:6,

 8

counsel's (1)

 20:25

counted (1)

 12:7

course (3)

 7:7;15:12;20:13

course-of- (1)

 15:8

Court (66)

 3:3,4,6,8,11,13,21;

 4:4,5,9,12,15,20,25;

 5:3,5,10;6:8,15,17,20;

 7:2,12,14,20,25;8:6,9,

 12,13,17;9:4,7,10,13,

 19;10:7,16,23;11:1,6,

 17;12:2,14,21,22;

 14:12,24;15:1,17;16:2,

 5;17:9;18:5,6,8,10;

 20:7;21:3,4,5,8,19,22,

 25;22:4

CourtCall (2)

 5:8;10:7

court-ordered (5)

 11:15,17;12:1,3;18:3

courts (1)

 14:18

craft (1)

 6:1

criticized (1)

 19:17

cut (2)

 4:25;11:11

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(1) able - cut Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 25

of 30
PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

June 11, 2019

D

damages (2)

 7:4;16:21

date (2)

 6:23;18:14

day (4)

 9:21;10:14;12:13;

 20:4

deal (3)

 11:11;15:6,19

dealing (1)

 14:1

dealt (1)

 14:22

debtor (10)

 5:11;6:2;9:16,17;

 11:9,18,19;16:24;

 18:12;20:10

debtors (7)

 4:18;5:10,20;6:5;

 14:17;17:25;18:2

debtors' (7)

 4:21;8:10;12:7;

 17:12;18:13;20:6,24

decide (1)

 13:24

decision (3)

 5:15,24;14:16

defend (1)

 14:18

defendants (1)

 13:14

defending (1)

 12:24

defense (1)

 18:13

defensive (1)

 5:22

delivery (1)

 13:3

deny (2)

 6:4;8:1

depart (1)

 20:23

depositions (1)

 9:24

determining (1)

 13:17

difference (3)

 6:20;8:19;18:5

different (5)

 12:5;14:18;15:3,23;

 19:23

difficult (1)

 19:25

directed (1)

 8:21

directing (1)

 21:6

disagree (1)

 7:20

discovery (2)

 9:24;10:10

discussion (1)

 15:22

dive (1)

 3:11

docket (1)

 9:3

dollar (4)

 12:10;13:1;16:12,23

dollars (4)

 11:21;13:12;17:11,

 13

done (4)

 11:22;13:23,23;

 17:16

doubt (1)

 13:16

draft (1)

 20:24

E

early (1)

 14:16

easier (1)

 19:24

easiest (1)

 18:16

economic (1)

 17:14

efforts (1)

 5:21

eighty (1)

 7:4

either (1)

 11:7

else (4)

 4:5;7:9;10:10;13:22

else's (1)

 19:19

emotional (1)

 20:18

end (6)

 7:11;8:8;11:22;

 13:21;16:25;19:12

ended (1)

 16:8

enforce (1)

 7:8

engage (2)

 15:22;18:3

enormously (1)

 13:17

entitled (1)

 13:12

entitlement (1)

 8:2

equipment (1)

 15:10

Essentially (1)

 15:23

estate (2)

 11:15;18:4

estimate (1)

 16:20

estimating (1)

 16:15

even (1)

 7:15

everyday (1)

 15:8

everyone (1)

 7:9

Everyone's (1)

 19:22

evidentiary-wise (1)

 10:11

exactly (2)

 10:13;15:19

exclusivity (1)

 15:15

expect (1)

 10:13

expectation (2)

 18:7,10

expected (1)

 20:8

expects (1)

 20:7

experienced (1)

 16:19

explored (1)

 9:14

extent (4)

 11:14;17:22;19:5;

 20:16

F

familiar (1)

 17:7

familiarity (1)

 11:5

far (3)

 6:17;14:20;16:19

Felderstein (1)

 3:24

few (1)

 6:22

figure (2)

 16:15;17:13

figures (3)

 16:22,22,22

figuring (1)

 15:6

filed (2)

 4:9;12:18

find (1)

 10:22

finding (1)

 9:7

fire (6)

 8:23;13:18;14:9;

 15:7;16:15;20:18

firms (1)

 10:24

fit (1)

 20:20

Fitzgerald (1)

 3:24

five (4)

 6:24;16:22;17:11,12

floodgates (2)

 14:14;18:25

focused (2)

 8:14;12:5

follow (1)

 20:21

force (1)

 14:17

forcing (1)

 18:2

form (3)

 3:17,19;20:25

formalize (1)

 18:12

format (1)

 20:19

forth (1)

 5:16

forward (1)

 4:10

found (1)

 8:24

four (3)

 6:25;10:10;17:8

framed (1)

 6:13

FRANCISCO (1)

 3:1

free (1)

 7:17

front (1)

 9:22

fully (1)

 5:19

further (2)

 19:13;22:3

future (1)

 6:18

G

gating (1)

 7:16

Gelman (6)

 5:16;13:9;14:11,16;

 15:24;16:9

Gelmans (1)

 12:11

Gelmans' (1)

 5:24

Gelman's (5)

 5:17;8:22;16:6;17:6;

 19:18

General's (1)

 3:25

gets (1)

 20:14

given (2)

 6:10,23

giving (1)

 18:19

goal (2)

 14:19,21

goes (1)

 12:25

Good (13)

 3:4,5,8,9,23;4:11,16,

 17;5:7;11:5;17:14;

 20:11,11

Gotshal (2)

 4:14,18

grant (2)

 18:2;19:6

granted (1)

 5:17

grid (1)

 20:19

grocery (2)

 13:3,4

guys (1)

 11:5

H

half-day (1)

 10:14

hall (2)

 11:10,11

handles (1)

 18:13

handling (1)

 4:14

hands (1)

 17:15

happen (6)

 9:20;15:4,8,9,19;

 21:13

harm (1)

 17:21

heard (1)

 4:5

hearing (5)

 6:7,23;14:23;17:24;

 19:13

High (1)

 4:1

highly (1)

 20:18

history (1)

 6:11

holding (1)

 15:10

honest (1)

 18:25

Honor (26)

 3:5,9,23;4:7,17;5:2,

 7,19;6:4,6,12,19;7:19;

 8:4;9:3,12;10:4,14;

 11:3,14;17:22;21:18,

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(2) damages - Honor Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 26

of 30
PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

June 11, 2019

 21,23,24;22:3

Honor's (2)

 5:15,23

huge (2)

 13:15;20:12

hundred (8)

 7:4;12:8;15:8,24;

 16:3,4,5;20:20

hundreds (1)

 15:6

hung (1)

 18:25

I

impact (1)

 13:16

impediment (1)

 11:24

implicated (3)

 11:8,9,23

important (2)

 8:25,25

importantly (1)

 21:2

imposition (4)

 13:21;17:17;18:3;

 20:13

inclined (2)

 6:4;9:18

includes (1)

 13:25

individual (2)

 6:3;14:21

initially (1)

 10:15

injured (1)

 17:8

injury (3)

 8:22,25;16:18

instances (1)

 17:8

instructed (1)

 6:20

interfere (1)

 13:15

into (2)

 3:12;15:12

invitation (1)

 21:15

involved (1)

 16:14

issue (7)

 5:25;6:13,16;7:9;

 8:7;10:20;13:17

issues (5)

 4:3;5:11,21;7:16;

 9:23

J

judge (1)

 21:2

judicial (2)

 9:22;10:14

JUNE (1)

 3:1

jury (1)

 12:21

K

keep (1)

 10:24

Keller (9)

 3:8,9,18;4:4,7,11,13;

 22:1,3

kind (4)

 14:2;16:14,16,17

kinds (2)

 15:10;16:11

knew (1)

 18:7

knock (1)

 3:10

knows (3)

 13:11,13;19:18

KPMG (2)

 3:14;4:2

L

large (1)

 9:11

last (1)

 6:23

later (1)

 10:20

laws (1)

 7:8

lawsuits (1)

 6:24

lawyer (6)

 11:10,18,18,19;19:7;

 21:1

lawyers (1)

 11:6

lawyer's (1)

 19:8

least (4)

 13:11;14:6;18:7;

 19:21

less (1)

 20:17

letting (1)

 14:5

liability (3)

 13:18;14:2;16:20

liable (1)

 8:24

lifted (1)

 10:19

light (1)

 8:21

likelihood (2)

 16:20,21

likely (1)

 8:8

limited (4)

 19:2,6;20:1,23

line (4)

 9:4,7,9;12:8

lines (1)

 19:9

liquidated (1)

 11:22

liquidating (1)

 14:6

liquidation (1)

 14:8

list (1)

 20:21

listen (1)

 21:12

litany (1)

 5:20

litigants (1)

 20:7

litigation (4)

 5:22;6:21;14:11;

 20:6

little (2)

 7:15;19:23

live (2)

 11:21;17:15

local (1)

 18:7

long (4)

 3:15;17:2,2;20:22

look (3)

 4:10;11:19;12:4

looking (1)

 16:9

looks (1)

 7:14

losing (1)

 12:25

lot (1)

 7:10

loud (1)

 14:3

M

maintain (1)

 13:8

makes (3)

 7:5,5;17:14

making (1)

 8:21

mandatory (7)

 7:12,15,17,22,23;

 8:2;9:2

many (2)

 8:23;10:23

Matt (1)

 5:2

Matter (2)

 3:7;11:1

May (8)

 5:15,23;8:12,24;

 18:8;20:16,18;21:13

maybe (4)

 10:18;15:8,21;19:10

mean (13)

 4:25;7:20;8:20;9:19;

 11:10;12:2,2,4,15;

 13:4;16:13,17;18:18

means (2)

 19:10;20:12

mediate (2)

 17:10,21

mediation (22)

 6:22;8:13;9:2,6,15,

 17,21,25;10:9,19;11:8,

 15,18;12:4,21;13:22;

 17:4;18:3,6;19:9;20:1;

 21:1

meet (1)

 18:14

meltdown (1)

 12:10

memorandum (1)

 5:15

mercifully (1)

 3:10

methodology (2)

 16:14;20:19

might (7)

 8:14;11:19;15:11;

 16:14;17:1,1;19:25

million (2)

 17:11,13

mind (2)

 8:18;19:25

minus (1)

 13:13

mirror (1)

 16:10

miss (1)

 8:15

misuse (1)

 12:16

misused (1)

 12:16

model (1)

 20:19

modifications (1)

 4:10

MoFo (1)

 3:14

months (1)

 6:22

more (16)

 4:6;5:19;8:22;9:24,

 24,24,24;13:17;14:20;

 16:2,11,19;19:25;20:4,

 17;21:1

morning (8)

 3:4,5,8,9,23;4:16,17;

 5:7

motion (10)

 4:14;5:24,25;7:14,

 14;8:15;9:3;14:16;

 15:15;21:9

motions (1)

 5:16

movants (1)

 14:18

much (7)

 5:25;8:10;14:20;

 16:11;19:24;21:25;

 22:4

multibillion (1)

 13:1

multimillion (1)

 12:10

multiple (2)

 11:4;20:16

N

Nathan (20)

 5:3,9,22,25;7:7;8:21;

 12:12;13:11,21;14:6;

 16:10,18,24;17:10,13,

 25;19:6,11;20:10;

 21:15

Nathan's (8)

 5:3;12:6,20;13:10;

 17:6;19:1,17;20:17

necessary (2)

 6:14;19:6

need (4)

 10:11;16:11;17:6;

 20:24

needed (2)

 5:20;10:10

needing (1)

 6:1

negotiate (1)

 17:25

negotiations (1)

 18:11

next (4)

 6:22;16:10;19:25;

 22:4

ninety-nine (1)

 20:20

Ninth (1)

 7:23

Nobody (1)

 21:3

non-PG&E (1)

 9:5

normal (2)

 18:7;21:7

O

Oakland (4)

 6:25;17:9;18:8,14

occasions (1)

 11:4

occur (1)

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(3) Honor's - occur Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 27

of 30
PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

June 11, 2019

 9:21

off (4)

 3:19;4:2,25;7:6

Office (2)

 3:25;4:19

officer (2)

 9:22;10:14

Olson (23)

 4:22;5:2,2,11;6:8,12,

 16,19;7:3,19,22;8:4,7,

 16;9:3,9,12,16;10:3,5;

 12:6;20:24;21:18

one (11)

 7:4;9:21,21,22;

 10:14,14;13:10;19:5,

 25;20:4,14

one's (1)

 19:16

only (3)

 3:13;8:8;20:11

oOo- (1)

 3:2

opening (2)

 14:13;18:25

opposition (1)

 5:14

order (7)

 3:3,14,17,19;4:2;

 19:5;20:25

ordered (3)

 8:13;9:4;18:6

ordering (1)

 21:5

orderly (1)

 20:13

orders (2)

 4:7,10

ordinary-course-of-business (1)

 14:1

others (1)

 14:6

others' (1)

 12:16

ought (1)

 12:4

out (9)

 11:10,11;12:10;14:3;

 15:6,12;16:15;18:21;

 21:16

outcomes (1)

 16:21

outside (3)

 10:25;11:4;17:7

over (1)

 18:14

overlook (1)

 9:2

overridden (1)

 8:2

overtaken (1)

 8:1

P

page (3)

 9:4,8,9

paid (2)

 7:4;17:2

paper (1)

 8:15

papers (1)

 5:14

participate (4)

 6:21;9:6;20:8;21:1

particular (3)

 9:21,21,22

parties (4)

 6:21;9:5,5,6

Pascuzzi (4)

 3:22,23,24,24

pass (1)

 7:18

Paul (1)

 3:23

pejorative (2)

 16:16,16

penalty (2)

 18:20;19:16

people (9)

 8:23;12:11,12;13:5;

 14:5;15:9,12;16:19;

 17:8

percent (1)

 7:4

perhaps (2)

 20:14;21:15

persuaded (2)

 13:7,7

petition (1)

 7:1

PG&E (8)

 3:7;7:3;8:24;10:12,

 25;12:18;13:14;15:11

phone (3)

 3:22;4:5;5:4

PI (1)

 16:17

pipeline (1)

 12:8

place (2)

 9:22;14:8

plaintiff (1)

 5:8

plan (2)

 7:8;8:11

Please (2)

 3:6;5:13

podium (1)

 4:13

point (4)

 12:18;13:11;19:2,22

possibility (2)

 9:14;18:1

potentially (2)

 15:21,22

power (3)

 13:5,6;15:10

pre- (1)

 6:25

precipitated (2)

 12:13,20

predicted (1)

 16:20

preferable (1)

 14:20

prepared (1)

 20:5

present (1)

 3:18

presume (1)

 9:20

pretend (2)

 9:20;15:3

pre-trial (1)

 10:1

principal (1)

 11:1

print (3)

 9:10,11,11

prior (2)

 6:25;10:10

probably (1)

 6:9

problem (3)

 11:24;13:20;19:12

proceedings (1)

 22:6

process (6)

 7:10;8:8;14:6,15;

 20:12;21:3

processes (1)

 21:7

progress (2)

 14:19,21

promise (1)

 21:14

proper (1)

 19:7

proposed (2)

 4:2;6:22

purpose (1)

 20:23

purposes (3)

 19:8,21;20:1

pursuant (1)

 7:8

put (2)

 7:6;11:20

puts (1)

 13:21

Q

quick (1)

 9:25

quite (1)

 15:15

quo (1)

 13:8

quote (1)

 5:23

R

Rail (1)

 4:1

rate (1)

 16:17

rather (1)

 14:14

reach (1)

 20:10

ready (2)

 7:9;10:9

real (1)

 7:9

really (4)

 6:13,17;7:10;16:9

rearview (1)

 16:10

reason (2)

 8:1;9:11

reasons (2)

 12:19,19

recognize (1)

 7:23

recognized (1)

 5:19

recovers (1)

 13:13

referring (1)

 9:5

refinery (1)

 12:10

regarding (1)

 18:1

relationships (1)

 11:5

relief (13)

 4:14;5:17;6:5,13;

 7:16,18,24;8:1;18:2;

 19:2,6;20:1;21:9

remember (2)

 10:24;17:5

reorganization (4)

 6:1;13:16;14:17,20

reply (1)

 5:13

representation (1)

 20:3

representative (1)

 20:6

representing (1)

 19:8

request (2)

 6:5,6

require (1)

 6:2

requires (1)

 11:15

resolve (3)

 4:3;7:5;8:9

resolved (3)

 6:25;19:24;20:15

Resources (2)

 3:16;4:1

respect (1)

 10:11

respectfully (1)

 6:6

restructuring (2)

 5:21;15:16

resume (1)

 5:21

retail (1)

 13:3

reverse (1)

 7:25

reviewed (1)

 8:18

revisit (2)

 10:20;15:2

rhetorical (1)

 17:18

right (9)

 3:12;5:6;7:18;11:2;

 14:12;15:17;16:5;

 21:25;22:2

Rosenberg (16)

 5:4,7,8,12;10:4,5,6,6,

 17,23;11:3;12:6;18:15;

 19:9;21:23,24

Rosenberg's (1)

 20:3

rules (1)

 21:4

ruling (4)

 5:15;6:7,9;13:9

run (1)

 13:1

running (1)

 13:25

run-of-the-mill (3)

 12:14,17;14:1

S

same (4)

 6:24;14:19;16:7;

 17:9

SAN (1)

 3:1

satisfied (2)

 3:14,16

saying (2)

 19:14;20:22

schedule (1)

 21:10

scheduled (1)

 9:2

scientific (1)

 16:13

seated (1)

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(4) off - seated Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 28

of 30
PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

June 11, 2019

 3:6

seeing (1)

 4:10

seek (1)

 10:18

seem (1)

 16:11

seems (1)

 18:16

sense (3)

 7:5;17:14;19:19

sent (1)

 11:11

September (14)

 6:7,22;8:14;13:23;

 14:25;15:3,4,18;17:24;

 19:13,14,17;21:10,11

series (1)

 6:23

set (1)

 5:16

Seth (3)

 5:8;10:6;21:23

settle (3)

 8:9;18:16;21:6

settled (2)

 18:22;21:12

settlement (8)

 15:22;17:16;18:1,11;

 20:19;21:2,5,9

settling (1)

 18:20

shake (1)

 17:15

show (2)

 8:17;17:10

sic (2)

 4:21;5:17

side (4)

 11:7,21;17:12;21:13

sidewalk (1)

 6:25

sign (1)

 17:15

signed (2)

 3:19;4:2

significant (2)

 12:19;13:16

similar (4)

 5:24;14:10,14;15:25

similarity (1)

 16:8

simple (1)

 17:15

sit (1)

 19:7

site (1)

 17:9

situation (5)

 8:19;12:6;16:6,7;

 19:1

six (1)

 16:22

slip-and-fall (1)

 13:4

Small (2)

 9:10,11

solution (1)

 10:18

somebody (4)

 11:12;12:4;16:12;

 17:11

someone (1)

 17:14

something-or-other (1)

 10:1

somewhere (2)

 12:7,9

soon (1)

 6:2

sorry (2)

 9:7;17:12

sort (1)

 10:1

sounds (1)

 19:23

speak (1)

 4:23

special (1)

 18:13

specific (2)

 6:2;15:20

specifically (3)

 5:23;10:25;14:15

specifics (1)

 17:5

Speed (1)

 4:1

stake (1)

 6:1

start (1)

 14:5

State (8)

 3:15;5:3;6:20;7:12;

 8:9,13;10:7;11:1

stated (1)

 14:15

status (1)

 13:8

stay (18)

 4:14;5:17;6:5,13;

 7:16,18,24;8:1;10:18;

 11:7,9,13,23;18:2;

 19:6;20:1;21:4,10

stick (2)

 13:20;19:4

still (3)

 7:15;8:24;14:16

store (1)

 13:3

stores (2)

 13:4,4

story (2)

 11:22;16:25

street (1)

 15:12

stuff (1)

 15:13

submitted (1)

 3:20

substantially (2)

 5:24;14:10

successful (1)

 14:20

such-and-such (1)

 18:14

suffered (1)

 16:18

sufficiently (1)

 5:16

suit (1)

 11:1

Superior (7)

 9:4;12:21;17:9;18:6,

 8;20:7;21:7

Suppose (1)

 18:5

Sure (5)

 4:24;8:20;13:22;

 15:14,19

suspect (2)

 16:23;17:11

system (1)

 20:12

T

table (1)

 19:7

tackle (1)

 6:2

talk (2)

 15:21;17:25

talking (1)

 9:14

telephone (1)

 3:21

telling (1)

 18:24

tentative (7)

 5:15;6:7;13:9,20;

 17:23;19:4;20:23

term (4)

 12:14,16,17;16:16

territory (1)

 13:1

testimony (1)

 9:25

thanks (2)

 21:25;22:4

theoretical (1)

 8:2

thinking (4)

 13:8,9;14:3;18:24

thought (2)

 6:8;8:18

thousands (1)

 15:6

three (1)

 16:22

till (1)

 17:24

today (6)

 3:12,19;5:18,25;6:5;

 16:10

told (1)

 12:6

tort (7)

 5:22;12:25;14:2;

 15:6,9,25;19:1

torts (1)

 8:24

toward (1)

 14:19

towards (1)

 14:21

track (1)

 10:24

Tran (15)

 4:13,17,17,24;5:14;

 11:14,25;14:10,13,25;

 15:14,18;16:4;17:22;

 21:21

trial (3)

 12:22,22;21:12

trip (1)

 15:9

tripped (1)

 13:5

trucks (1)

 15:11

true (2)

 7:25;8:12

Try (6)

 9:10;12:5;17:10,20;

 19:24;20:1

trying (1)

 18:12

TUESDAY (1)

 3:1

turn (2)

 4:8,13

two (4)

 3:13;4:6;13:11;

 14:18

type (2)

 9:25;15:9

U

under (1)

 20:2

understands (1)

 21:2

unfortunate (1)

 17:2

unfortunately (2)

 15:11;17:1

UNISON (1)

 3:5

Unless (2)

 3:11;4:4

unliquidated (1)

 20:18

unsuccessful (1)

 10:19

up (4)

 7:11;8:8;17:10;

 18:25

upload (1)

 4:7

upon (1)

 10:15

upset (1)

 20:13

use (1)

 16:16

used (2)

 12:15;20:12

usual (3)

 12:22,24;13:25

utility (7)

 6:24;12:24;13:1,24;

 19:8,11,20

V

Valero (3)

 5:16;12:11;16:7

variation (1)

 19:5

vast (2)

 14:7;16:15

victim (2)

 12:17;15:7

victims (3)

 8:23,23;13:18

violate (1)

 11:13

violating (1)

 21:4

W

Wait (3)

 4:20;7:8;17:2

waiting (1)

 7:9

wants (1)

 4:5

waste (1)

 4:6

way (7)

 12:5,15;18:21;19:14;

 20:7,22;21:16

week (1)

 16:10

Weil (2)

 4:14,18

Wendy (2)

 5:3,8

what's (11)

 5:10;6:10;9:20;15:2,

 3,3,8,19;16:17;17:21;

 18:5

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(5) seeing - what's Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 29

of 30
PG&E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

June 11, 2019

where's (1)

 13:18

Whereupon (1)

 22:6

whole (1)

 7:10

who'll (1)

 4:14

wildfire (1)

 12:9

wildfires (1)

 12:13

Willoughby (1)

 3:24

winning (1)

 12:24

without (2)

 18:12;20:12

wood (1)

 3:10

worked (1)

 11:4

working (1)

 4:3

world (2)

 13:22;16:17

world's (1)

 18:16

wrong (1)

 6:10

Y

yell (1)

 17:19

1

10th (1)

 6:7

11 (1)

 3:1

12th (2)

 5:15,23

2

2019 (1)

 3:1

2048 (1)

 9:4

3

3 (2)

 9:4,9

30th (2)

 9:6;17:24

6

6 (4)

 9:4,7,8,9

9

9:31 (1)

 3:1

9:58 (1)

 22:6

Min-U-Script® eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(6) where's - 9:58 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2491 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 07:14:52 Page 30

of 30