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

26

LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON, SBN 057393

SEAN M. JACOBSON, SBN 227241

COHEN AND JACOBSON, LLP

66 Bovet Road, Suite 285

San Mateo, CA 94402

Telephone: (650) 261-6280

laj@cohenandjacobson.com

Attorneys for Amir Shahmirza

(Agent for Komir, Inc.) and Komir, Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

G Affects PG&E Corporation

G Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

O Affects both Debtors

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ROGER

LEATHERMAN IN SUPPORT OF

(1) CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO PG&E’S

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

ISSUES IN REORGANIZED DEBTORS 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM #2090 AND

CLAIMANT’S RESPONSE THERETO

AND 

(2) CLAIMANT’S RESPONSE TO THE

COUNTER-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT BY DEBTORS

[Response to Counter-Motion Filed

Separately]

Date: April 11, 2023

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: (Tele/Videoconference Appearances

Only)

United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROGER LEATHERMAN 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13654-5 Filed: 04/03/23 Entered: 04/03/23 16:38:58 Page 1

of 8
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

26

Amir Shahmirza, as agent of, and acting on behalf of, Komir, Inc. (“Komir” or “Claimant”),

submits the following Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Roger Leatherman in Support of

(1) Claimant’s Reply to PG&E’s Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Issues in

Reorganized Debtors Objection to Claim #2090 and Claimant’s Response Thereto and (2)

Claimant’s Response to the Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment by Debtors. 

For the reasons and on the grounds stated below, Claimant objects to and seeks the exclusion

of the statements in and exhibits to the Declaration of Roger Leatherman as follows:

1. Paragraph 4

(a) Paragraph 4, page 1, lines 12-20, in its entirety on grounds of lack of relevance.

The “certain records” that PG&E maintains in its database in a “Land Rights Library”

are irrelevant as the only potentially operative documents concerning the issue

presented for Summary Judgment are (a) Easements that were recorded in the Office

of the County Recorder of San Mateo County and (b) the recorded Judgment of

Condemnation and the Order of Condemnation.

(b) The statement at page 1, lines 16-17, that “PG&E or its predecessors in interest have

multiple separate easements for the Transmission Lines that traverse the Komir

Property” is inadmissable on the grounds that:

(i) lacks foundation with respect to the undefined “Transmission Lines” as to

identification of any particular “Transmission Line,” as to the location of any

particular “Transmission Line,” and as to the date of installation or alteration

of any “Transmission Line.”

(ii) to the extent that the statement purports to present the content of any

document, the document speaks for itself.

(iii) constitutes a statement or opinion or conclusion by a witness not qualified as

an expert pursuant to Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (although the

Declarant describes his employment functions, the fact of his job duties does

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROGER LEATHERMAN 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13654-5 Filed: 04/03/23 Entered: 04/03/23 16:38:58 Page 2

of 8
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

26

not render the Declarant competent to express expert opinions).

(iv) constitutes a conclusion of law as stating or implying in the present tense that

“PG&E or its predecessors in interest have multiple separate easements for the

Transmission Lines...”

(v) the statement at page 1, lines 18-19, that “PG&E’s Transmission Lines ... all

predate the purchase of the Komir Property by Komir, Inc., in 2000" is

contradicted by PG&E’s judicial admissions that in 2018 transmission lines

across Claimant’s Property were reconstituted, relocated, and situated at

heights different than any prior occupation of the Property.

2. Paragraph 5

(a) Paragraph 5, page 1, line 22, through page 2, line 4, in its entirety on the grounds that

the paragraph constitutes a conclusion of law as stating or implying that the

documents identified in the subparts presently have any legal effect.

(b) Paragraph 5 in its entirety on the grounds of lack of relevance with respect to any

“research” performed by the Declarant.

3. Paragraph 6

(a) The first sentence on page 2, lines 5-9 purports to summarize, characterize or restate

the content of the Judgment in Condemnation that speaks for itself.

(b) Paragraph 6, page 2, lines 5 through 16, in its entirety as speculation, rather than

personal knowledge, with respect to the matters stated therein including without

limitation the identity of any “Freeway Master Contract,” the date and terms of any

Freeway Master Contract purportedly being the reference in the Judgment in

Condemnation (that does not identify any Master Contract).

(c) Paragraph 6, page 2, lines 5 through 16, in its entirety as the testimony in the

paragraph is based upon the Declarant’s interpretation and summary of a document

that speaks for itself.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROGER LEATHERMAN 3

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13654-5 Filed: 04/03/23 Entered: 04/03/23 16:38:58 Page 3

of 8
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

26

(d) Paragraph 6, page 2, lines 5 through 16, in its entirety on the grounds that the

paragraph constitutes a conclusion of law with respect to operation of a Freeway

Master Contract, the legal effect of a Freeway Master Contract with respect to the

issues presented for Summary Judgment, and speculation with respect to the actions

that parties to a Freeway Master Contract may take with respect to one another.

4. Paragraph 7

(a) Paragraph 7, page 2, lines 17 through 24, in its entirety as a hearsay statement with

respect to the purported content of unspecified “business records” and double-hearsay

with respect to purported statements by Caltrans as ostensibly contained in the

hearsay business records.

(b) Paragraph 7, page 2, lines 17 through 24, in its entirety as a statement of expert

opinion without foundation, including without limitation the statements as to what the

Declarant “determined” and the Declarant’s statements as to what was or was not

relocated, all as based upon hearsay documents that themselves lack foundation.

(c) Paragraph 7, page 2, lines 17 through 24, in its entirety on the grounds of lack of

relevance in that the relocation or not of transmission lines has no legal effect on the

extinguishment of easements by condemnation.

5. Paragraph 8.

(a) Exhibit F to the Leatherman Declaration is a hearsay document in that the Declaration

lacks foundation with respect to the Exhibit being a business record (Rule 803(A)

through (D)), including the lack of any competent showing that the document was

made at or near the time of an event, lack of competent showing that the document

was kept “in the course of a regularly conducted activity,” and that the making of the

document “was a regular practice of that activity.”

(b) Exhibit F to the Leatherman Declaration lacks authentication as the Declarant fails to

provide any foundation to satisfy the require that the document is what proponent

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROGER LEATHERMAN 4

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13654-5 Filed: 04/03/23 Entered: 04/03/23 16:38:58 Page 4

of 8
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

26

claims it is. (Rule 901, Federal Rules of Evidence). In paragraph 8, at page 2, lines

27-28, the Declarant states only the conclusion that Exhibit F is a business record that

“depicts the tower lines that extend across what is identified in the Complaint as the

Komir Property” with no showing that the “drawing” does so, no testimony as to the

preparer of the documents or that person’s qualifications, the manner of preparation,

the reliability, or any other detail.

(c) Exhibit F to the Leatherman Declaration lacks sufficient clarity to provide any

probative value with respect to the matter as to which it is offered.

(d) Exhibit F to the Leatherman Declaration is in the form of a Record of Survey but fails

to conform with the requirements of the Land Surveyor Act (California Business &

Professions Code Sections 8726, 8761, and 8762), including without limitation the

lack of a Stamp by Licensed Surveyor, and is therefor inadmissable as such.

(e) The Declarant lacks competence to testify with respect to the interpretation of Exhibit

F or to testify with respect to the Exhibit having “been modified” or to testify

regarding any “changes to PG&E’s land rights ...” (Paragraph 8, page 2, line 28 to

page 3, line 2) The Declaration lacks any testimony with respect to any qualifications

of the Declarant to interpret the document or to testify as to time or manner of

“modifications.”

(f) The testimony in Paragraph 8 at page 3, lines 1-2, regarding Exhibit F having been

modified “to depict changes to P&E’s land rights associated with the Transmission

Lines depicted on the drawing” constitute statements of expert opinion without

foundation.

(g) The testimony in Paragraph 8 regarding Exhibit 7 having been modified “to depict

changes to P&E’s land rights associated with the Transmission Lines depicted on the

drawing” constitute statements of legal opinions and conclusions to the extent that

those statements are offered to state or imply the existence of any particular legal

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROGER LEATHERMAN 5

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13654-5 Filed: 04/03/23 Entered: 04/03/23 16:38:58 Page 5

of 8
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

26

rights.

6. Paragraph 9.

(a) Exhibit G to the Leatherman Declaration is a hearsay document in that the

Declaration lacks foundation with respect to the Exhibit being a business record (Rule

803(A) through (D), including the lack of any competent showing that the document

was made at or near the time of an event, lack of competent showing that the

document was kept “in the course of a regularly conducted activity,” and that the

making of the document “was a regular practice of that activity.”

(b) Exhibit G to the Leatherman Declaration lacks authentication as the Declarant fails to

provide any foundation to satisfy the require that the document is what proponent

claims it is. (Rule 901, Federal Rules of Evidence). In paragraph 9, at page 3, lines

5-8, the Declarant states only the conclusion that Exhibit G is a business record that is

a “Plan and Profile Drawing” and that the “drawing depicts the plan and profile of the

tower lines that extend across what is identified in this action as the Komir Property”

(page 3, lines 8-10) with no showing that the “drawing” does so, no testimony as to

the preparer of the documents or that person’s qualifications, the manner of

preparation, the reliability, or any other detail.

(c) Exhibit G to the Leatherman Declaration lacks sufficient clarity to provide any

probative value with respect to the matter as to which it is offered.

(d) The Declarant lacks competence to testify with respect to the interpretation of Exhibit

G or to testify with respect to the Exhibit having “been modified.” The Declaration

lacks any testimony with respect to any qualifications of the Declarant to interpret the

document or to testify as to time or manner of “modifications.” (Page 3, lines 8-10)

(e) The Declarant lacks competence to testify with respect to the interpretation of Exhibit

G or to testify that “The 2000 Plan and Profile Drawing identifies the tower lines in

the same alignment as the 1946 Line Review Drawing.” (Page 3, lines 12-13)The

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROGER LEATHERMAN 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13654-5 Filed: 04/03/23 Entered: 04/03/23 16:38:58 Page 6

of 8
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

26

Declaration lacks any testimony with respect to any qualifications of the Declarant to

interpret the document or to testify as to the comparative alignment stated in the

Declaration.

(f) The testimony in Paragraph 9, page 3, lines 6-8, regarding Exhibit F having been

modified “to depict the plan and profile of the tower lines that extend across what is

identified in this action as the Komir Property” constitute statements of expert

opinion without foundation.

(g) The testimony in Paragraph 9, page 3, lines 8-10, regarding Exhibit G having been

modified “to depict changes to P&E’s Transmission Lines and related facilities

depicted on the drawing” constitute statements of legal opinions and conclusions to

the extent that those statements are offered to state or imply the existence of any

particular legal rights.

7. Paragraph 10.

(a) Paragraph 10, page 3, lines 14-20, in its entirety as based upon the hearsay statements

of the individuals identified therein and as based upon documents not authenticated

by the Declarant. In Objections to the Declarations of the two individuals referenced

in Paragraph 10 Claimant objects to the testimony and documents in those

Declarations.

(b) Paragraph 10 lacks foundation for any competence of the Declarant to make the

statements that:

(i) “The Transmission Lines at issue within the recorded PG&E easements...” as

the statement implies that the Transmission Lines are properly situated within

an undefined “easement” and the Declaration does not provide any

foundational testimony as to any personal knowledge for this Declarant to

make that statement or any foundational testimony for this Declarant to offer

any expert opinion with respect to the content of the statement. (Page 3, lines

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROGER LEATHERMAN 7

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13654-5 Filed: 04/03/23 Entered: 04/03/23 16:38:58 Page 7

of 8
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

26

14-16)

(ii) The Transmission Lines “... are permanent structures that have been in place

for several decades” as the Declaration does not provide any foundational

testimony as to any personal knowledge for this Declarant to make that

statement or any foundational testimony for this Declarant to offer any expert

opinion with respect to the content of the statement. (Page 3, lines 8-10)

(iii) “... and would require heavy equipment to remove those Transmission Lines

and facilities” (Page 3, line 20) as the Declaration does not provide any

foundational testimony as to any personal knowledge for this Declarant to

make that statement or any foundational testimony for this Declarant to offer

any expert opinion with respect to the content of the statement. Further, the

statement is (a) internally contradictory as the Transmission Lines are not

permanent if they can be removed with heavy equipment and (b) contradicted

by the admission in Exhibit G wherein PG&E admits that four (4) “TSP”s

were removed and two “TSP”s installed.

Respectfully submitted.

 Dated: April 3, 2023 COHEN AND JACOBSON, LLP

By: /s/ Lawrence A. Jacobson 

 Attorneys for Claimant

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROGER LEATHERMAN 8

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13654-5 Filed: 04/03/23 Entered: 04/03/23 16:38:58 Page 8

of 8