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

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

9:30 AM

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY,

FILED BY AD HOC GROUP OF 

SUBROGATION CLAIM HOLDERS 

[2863]

AMENDED MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM STAY, FILED BY OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

[2904]

DEBTORS' FIRST OMNIBUS REPORT 

AND OBJECTION TO CLAIMS 

ASSERTED PURSUANT TO 11 

U.S.C. SECTION 503(B)(9) 

[2896]

DEBTORS' MOTION PURSUANT TO 

11 U.S.C. SECTIONS 105(A) AND 

502(C), FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT 

OF WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION 

PROCEDURES [3091]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE HONORABLE DENNIS MONTALI

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Debtors: STEPHEN KAROTKIN, ESQ.

MATTHEW GOREN, ESQ. 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153

(212) 310-8000

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 1 of

341
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 Debtors (cont'd.): JANE KIM, ESQ. 

Keller & Benvenutti LLP

650 California Street

Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415) 796-0709

KEVIN J. ORSINI, ESQ.

PAUL H. ZUMBRO, ESQ. 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

(212) 474-1000

For the Official Committee 

of Unsecured Creditors:

GREGORY A. BRAY, ESQ.

Milbank LLP

2029 Century Park East

33rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(424) 386-4302

ANDREW M. LEBLANC, ESQ. 

Milbank LLP

1850 K Street, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 835-7574

For the Official Committee 

of Tort Claimants:

ROBERT A. JULIAN, ESQ.

Baker & Hostetler LLP

11601 Wilshire Boulevard

Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90025

(310) 442-8887

For the Ad Hoc Committee 

of Bondholders:

ASHLEY VINSON CRAWFORD, ESQ. 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

580 California Street

Suite 1500

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 765-9561

For the Ad Hoc Group of 

Subrogation Claim Holders:

BENJAMIN P. MCCALLEN, ESQ.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

787 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

(212) 728-8651

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 2 of

341
3

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 California Department 

of Toxic Control:

PAUL J. PASCUZZI, ESQ.

Felderstein Fitzgerald Willoughby

Pascuzzi & Rios LLP

500 Capitol Mall

Suite 2250

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 329-7400

For the City and County of 

San Francisco:

EDWARD J. TREDINNICK, ESQ. 

Greene Radovsky Maloney Share & 

Hennigh LLP

1 Front Street

Suite 3200

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 981-1400

For Equity Holders: BRUCE BENNETT, ESQ.

Jones Day

555 South Flower Street

50th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

(213) 243-2382

For Lisa Delaine Allain, 

Thomas Atkinson, Chippewa 

Pest Control, Inc., Lara 

Balas, Adam Balogh, Brian 

Bolton, Sharon Britt and 

Heather Blowers:

STEVEN M. CAMPORA, ESQ. 

Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood 

Campora, LLP

20 Bicentennial Circle 

Sacramento, CA 95826

(916) 379-3500

For Michael Marroquin: DANIEL TUREK, ESQ. 

Rodriguez & Associates, A 

Professional Law Corporation

2020 Eye Street

Bakersfield, CA 93301

(661) 323-1400

For North Bay Cases: FRANK M. PITRE, ESQ.

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP

840 Malcolm Road

Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

(650) 697-6000

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 3 of

341
4

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 North Bay Cases 

(cont'd.):

MICHAEL A. KELLY, ESQ.

Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & 

Schoenberger

650 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415) 889-2919

For State Farm Mutual 

Insurance Company:

ALLAN S. BRILLIANT, ESQ. 

Dechert LLP

Three Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY, 10036

(212) 698-3600

For U.S. TelePacific

Corp.:

DANIEL E. VAKNIN, ESQ. 

Macdonald Fernandez LLP

221 Sansome Street

3rd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 362-0449

For Various Fire Victims: GERALD SINGLETON, ESQ.

Singleton Law Firm, APC

450 A Street

5th Floor

San Diego, CA 92101

(760) 697-1330

For Wildfire Victims: DARIO DE GHETALDI, ESQ. 

Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & 

Riddle LLP

700 El Camino Real

Millbrae, CA 94030

(650) 871-5666

Court Recorder: LORENA PARADA

Transcriber: CLARA RUBIN

 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# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 4 of

341
5

PG&E Corp., 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, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2019, 9:30 AM

-oOo-

(Call to order of the Court.)

THE CLERK: All rise. Court is now in session, the 

Honorable Dennis Montali presiding. 

THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Please be seated. 

IN UNISON: Good morning, Your Honor. 

THE CLERK: Matter of PG&E Corporation. 

THE COURT: All right, a comment about the logistics. 

I'm sorry about the crowd. This is the first time, I think, in 

the PG&E hearings we've had the overflow courtroom, Judge 

Blumenstiel's courtroom, not available. As of a few minutes 

ago, there were a couple of spaces down on the media center, 

first floor, if anyone would rather go down there and be 

seated. And I'm going to try to work with our Clerk of Court 

to see if we can arrange for an alternative overflow courtroom 

for the future. 

Just so you know; those of you familiar with the 

building here, the district judges have somewhat larger 

courtrooms, and they've offered one or more of them to me, but 

we don't have the ability to transport the electronics and the 

recording (sic). So this is home to stay. But I'm going to 

see if we can't make some other arrangements so we don't have 

this kind of congestion. 

And for the couple people standing, I don't mind if 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 5 of

341
6

PG&E Corp., 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

you sit on the floor like you're at the airport. This is not 

kindergarten; you don't have to sit around in a circle. And I 

also don't mind if the gentlemen, particularly, sitting on the 

floor want to take their jackets off; the women, if they want 

to do something to be more casual. Do what you want. This 

is -- we're here to do something more than have to dress 

formally.

So let's just do the best we can. I'm sorry about the 

crowd. 

Now, Ms. Kim, I see you here. Are you here somewhere? 

Do you want me to call the 503(b)(9) matter just to see if 

there's any response, or just to declare a default as to --

nonresponsive? What's your --

MS. KIM: Yeah --

THE COURT: -- pleasure? 

MS. KIM: Sure. Mr. Goren is here to answer any of 

the questions that you have on it and --

THE COURT: I don't have any questions. I just want 

to -- I want to make sure we take care of what you're expecting 

me to. So --

MR. GOREN: That's fine, Your Honor. Either way.

THE COURT: Well, let's --

MR. GOREN: With respect to all of the objections --

THE COURT: -- let's just -- for the record, the 

debtors filed motions under Section 503(b)(9) some time ago, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 6 of

341
7

PG&E Corp., 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 a number of people have responded and the debtors' counsel 

have worked on stipulations to put many of them over to a later 

hearing. Are there any parties here in the court or on the 

phone that wish to be heard on the 503(b)(9) motions or 

objections to claims? 

Yes, sir. Just -- I need a name and an appearance. 

Good morning. 

MR. VAKNIN: Daniel Vaknin on behalf of U.S. 

Pacific -- sorry, TelePacific. Yeah, we're in agreement with 

the amended proposed order. I just want to say that on the 

record. 

THE COURT: Okay. All right, well, then I'll just go 

ahead and we'll process the order that's been uploaded for --

that takes care of everyone. Thank you. And then --

MR. VAKNIN: Thank you, Your --

THE COURT: -- we won't -- there's no action for 

the -- taken on that. 

So where's Mr. Karotkin? Mr. Orsini, you in the front 

chair today? Is that it? 

MR. ORSINI: I am, Your Honor. Good morning.

THE COURT: Do you want to -- do you have any 

announcements or --

MR. ORSINI: Housekeeping matters to begin, Your 

Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 7 of

341
8

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: I believe Your Honor's order allocated 

forty-five minutes for us.

THE COURT: Wait one second. What? 

THE CLERK: An appearance for the --

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. 

MR. ORSINI: Yes.

THE COURT: Appearance for the record.

MR. ORSINI: Kevin Orsini, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, on 

behalf of the debtors. 

THE COURT: Yeah, you want me to -- you okay with that 

allocation?

MR. ORSINI: Forty-five minutes is fine, Your Honor, 

for the opening. I will allocate fifteen minutes in total to 

three other stakeholders who would like to argue in support of 

our motion --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- the UCC, the equity holders 

represented by Mr. Bennett, and the ad hoc bondholders 

represented by Akin Gump. They've requested five minutes each 

and we've agreed to provide them with that time. 

THE COURT: Okay, and then --

MR. ORSINI: Which would --

THE COURT: That's fine. 

MR. ORSINI: -- leave me with thirty minutes, by my 

calculation.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 8 of

341
9

PG&E Corp., 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: All right. And I have a couple of more 

specific questions than I might have asked in the past. I can 

do them ahead of time or I can wait. What's your pleasure?

MR. ORSINI: I'm happy to hear your questions first, 

Your Honor. I think if you have questions, those are the most 

important things for me to address. There're other points I'm 

sure I'll want to make.

THE COURT: Well, of course I want you to talk about 

whatever you want to talk about, but there still is confusion 

in my mind, and perhaps even in reading the opposition to the 

estimation motion. And let's all agree that the estimation 

motion and the motions for relief from stay have a lot of 

overlap, and we've -- I've said several times they were all 

interrelated, and some of the legal arguments are the same. 

But here's the question: So, bankruptcy lawyers know 

about estimation under 502. There may be some attorneys who 

are not well-versed in the Bankruptcy Code and not familiar 

with what I think is a fairly unique process in the bankruptcy 

world. But the way I see it for -- particularly for your 

phases 1 and 2 -- phase 1, as you've proposed, is a legal 

question, but it's still something that comes in the context of 

the 502(b) estimation. And phase 2 is obviously a bigger 

question, having to do with the Tubbs fire. 

And so my -- here's my question: for each of those --

perhaps the answer's different for the two -- is it an 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 9 of

341
10

PG&E Corp., 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

estimation or is it the end of the story? In other words --

let's take the easy one. Let's take the inverse condemnation. 

Your position is that that law should be ignored or that's the 

way the TCC and the courts of appeal in California have 

interpreted it. And obviously there're a number of parties 

that disagree with that. That seems like a question of law. 

So let's -- leave aside how we get there. Suppose 

we're here and -- I've heard the arguments and I'm ready to 

rule. And it doesn't matter what my ruling is. Is it still 

part of estimation? Am I just estimating and predicting 

what -- not what the California Supreme Court would do but what 

would happen if it were a full trial? In other words, what I'm 

trying to get is what do we do with a pure legal question in an 

estimation hearing? 

MR. ORSINI: So I think, Your Honor, from our 

perspective -- and let me just step back for a second. The 

three-phased approach that we came up with was really guided by 

at least two motivating principles; one was to address key 

gating issues as quickly as we possibly could.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: We all know we have the time constraints, 

and there are some issues we thought we could address sooner 

rather than later, including potentially before the bar date; 

another issue we can discuss, because I --

THE COURT: Well, but that's a minor issue --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 10

of 341
11

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: -- by comparison, so --

MR. ORSINI: And the second point, Your Honor, was, if 

you get to those gating issues sooner rather than later, it 

obviously helps the parties start to value their claims.

And so I think -- on your specific question on the 

inverse-condemnation legal issue, I think in the context of 

estimation Your Honor would have a choice; Your Honor would be 

able to estimate it as a percentage-likely outcome of where we 

land if we were to litigate this all the way through the statecourt system. However, I also think it's inherently within the 

Court's authority to make a ruling on inverse condemnation. It 

is a legal issue, as Your Honor notes. It's a legal issue that 

doesn't require any discovery. And in the estimation context, 

it could also be viewed as effectively a disallowance of 

inverse-condemnation claims --

THE COURT: Well, okay, but again, we're back to -- I 

could say I agree with you, end of story. But it seems to me 

that "end of story" means end of story, the Tubbs-fire case is 

gone. Right? 

MR. ORSINI: So I think --

THE COURT: Or unless some claimants, whether they be 

individual as part of the estimation process, could argue 

somehow, even if the legal principle has been set aside, 

there's still a theory. But do you think -- would that still 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 11

of 341
12

PG&E Corp., 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

be open for discussion or not? 

MR. ORSINI: So with respect to the inversecondemnation issue, Your Honor, I think --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. ORSINI: -- if you decide that issue, that issue 

is done. 

THE COURT: And if I decide it adverse to the debtor, 

then the debtor has to defend on the question -- well, no, it 

seems to me, then, the sixty-four-dollar question is, is the 

CAL FIRE report right or is it some -- are other theories 

right? And then we're back to the more traditional estimation 

process. 

MR. ORSINI: With respect to the Tubbs fire, that's 

correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Right, but the --

MR. ORSINI: There would also be issues with respect 

to the other fires of phase 3. 

THE COURT: Well, I'll leave the other fires aside for 

the moment and I'll leave phase 3. I'm still back to the point 

where, when you start in the Code for what a bankruptcy court 

can do for estimation --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- it doesn't say, like a court could do 

on a summary judgment, I can rule -- the court can rule up or 

down on a legal question. Now, obviously it's part of it. And 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 12

of 341
13

PG&E Corp., 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

part of the estimation might be please estimate this claim at 

zero because I have a one-hundred-percent bulletproof defense 

to it: statute of limitations or some easy one. 

Okay, so now let's go --

MR. ORSINI: Well --

THE COURT: Go ahead. 

MR. ORSINI: And on that point, Your Honor, on statute 

of limitations, I think it's the same type of argument as 

relates to inverse condemnation. It's a legal argument.

THE COURT: So let's --

MR. ORSINI: And --

THE COURT: -- let's do something else again that I 

do, because it helps me; I don't know, others might not 

appreciate this. But when I have to deal with 40- or 50,000 

persons who suffered personal or property damage in a series of 

fires, that's more complex than one case of one person that has 

suffered one injury.

So if we had a Chapter 7 case and a claim filed by a 

person who claims to have been injured, either a tort injury or 

even a contractual injury -- let's say I'm in bankruptcy and 

you have been infringing on an intellectual-property right that 

I have, and I have a claim against you for millions of dollars. 

But -- I'm sorry, that you then file bankruptcy and say, "We 

can't determine it specifically. The Court has to estimate 

it."

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 13

of 341
14

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: So in a case like that, how the estimation 

takes place is quite variable. But at the end of the day, the 

estimation, for virtually all purposes, is over with. The 

estimator -- the Court says, "I estimate Mr. Orsini's liability

as twenty million dollars" or "I estimate it at zero," or I go 

through the analysis of, well, he's probably got a hundredpercent -- I mean a fifty-percent chance of winning his 

million-dollar claim, so I'll estimate it at 500,000. But any 

of those choices, we're done; right? 

MR. ORSINI: That's correct, Your Honor, and --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- and I think in this context, just 

stepping back -- because here we do have the much more complex 

scenario --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. ORSINI: -- where we have, at minimum, 40- to 

50,000 claims.

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. ORSINI: And I'll get to how many of those are 

actually personal-injury claims --

THE COURT: No, that's a much different question --

MR. ORSINI: It's a different issue --

THE COURT: -- and I want to -- 

MR. ORSINI: -- but I'll get to that.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 14

of 341
15

PG&E Corp., 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: -- defer that to later. 

MR. ORSINI: But on this issue in particular, Your 

Honor, I think there's broad consensus among all the 

stakeholders, as there has to be, that we can't possibly 

liquidate all of these claims.

THE COURT: No, no, I understand. 

MR. ORSINI: So, estimation's absolutely required.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. ORSINI: And the result of what would happen --

let's stick with phase 2 and Tubbs, for example. The result as 

to what would happen at the end of that, I think, could differ 

depending upon what type of claim we're talking about. You 

heard Mr. Feldman --

THE COURT: Well, that's right. Of course, I --

MR. ORSINI: You heard Mr. Feldman admit that to you 

yesterday with respect to the subrogation claims, which there's 

no argument that those are outside of this Court's core 

jurisdiction. 

THE COURT: No, I understand.

MR. ORSINI: Those would be over. With respect to the 

individual claims that are not property claims -- I'm not going 

to get into that piece of the argument right now -- what we're 

asking the Court to do -- and I think this is a very, very 

critical point. What we're asking the Court to do with respect 

to phase 2 as well as ultimately phase 3 is to estimate whether 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 15

of 341
16

PG&E Corp., 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

or not there's a likelihood of liability with respect to the 

claims of all of the claimants here. 

And with respect to the individuals and in particular 

the personal-injury claims, this doesn't strip them of a jurytrial right.

THE COURT: Well, but I want to -- I want to -- that's 

another question we can come back to later. But I'm still 

trying to make sure I'm clear as to how the estimation process 

works, and that's why intentionally I wanted to stay away from 

the jury entitlement, because, as some of us know, and maybe 

some people don't agree, if we bring in a personal-injury 

claim, maybe the simple solution is a different judge. But 

that's not --

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: -- for today. 

So what I'm trying to do is this; stick with my 

hypothetical: So we have one claim in one simple bankruptcy, 

but the issues raised by the claimant are: was the claim 

barred by the statute of limitations; was there some legal 

theory that would immunize the party; was there a factual 

question that would require, absent bankruptcy, three years of 

discovery and delay. And the answer to -- seems to me that the 

bankruptcy judge says, well, it's certainly unliquidated and it 

certainly will delay the administration of the case, therefore 

I factor in the legal question, the legal argument, the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 16

of 341
17

PG&E Corp., 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

uncertainties, the likelihood of prevailing, et cetera, and I 

come to a conclusion from zero to a million dollars or anywhere 

in between. 

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: How we get to that number is not for 

today.

MR. ORSINI: Sure.

THE COURT: So then you agree that -- and obviously,

if others have a different view, I'll hear from them -- that 

when we talk about phases 1 and 2, we're talking about 

components of the estimation -- well, phase 3 also, but, I 

mean, at least the first two. But phase 2 is critical because

it has the Tubbs question.

MR. ORSINI: That's right, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right, so does that mean, then, if 

I -- again, let's assume that it's I, but, if you need to 

substitute an Article III judge, fine. For these purposes, 

same question. If the decision-maker says, "Mr. Orsini's 

smoking an illegal substance," the inverse-condemnation

doctrine is alive and well, so he loses on that one. But on 

the fire one, we've got -- on the Tubbs fire, we've got 

different opinions. Was it the CAL report that's dispositive? 

Was it -- is it the other alternative? Is there some other in 

between? The decision still turns on that ultimate question: 

is PG&E liable or not? Right?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 17

of 341
18

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: Absolutely, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that something that can be done and 

arranged? I mean, the TCC, perhaps in their relief-from-stay 

motion -- maybe it's this one -- they seem to say it's all or 

nothing. But is it all or nothing? Can the estimator say, 

"Based upon percentages, I would say the liability would be X"? 

And X could be forty percent of the spread; right? 

MR. ORSINI: So our position, Your Honor, is very much 

that it will be nothing. But --

THE COURT: I know. 

MR. ORSINI: -- can it be something other than 

nothing, and not one hundred percent? The answer, I think, is 

obviously yes. That is inherently --

THE COURT: Because 502 permits that.

MR. ORSINI: Because 502 permits that. And actually, 

if you look at all the estimation cases and particularly in the 

asbestos context, a lot of times courts will estimate 

likelihood of success at something other than zero or one. 

THE COURT: Right, but as you know --

MR. ORSINI: It's something in between. 

THE COURT: -- one of the -- one of the seminal cases 

in this whole area when the law was fairly new was the Bittner 

case. And --

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: -- as I recall, the Bittner case did the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 18

of 341
19

PG&E Corp., 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

analysis and said, zero, end of story. And to a lot of 

nonbankruptcy people, they probably thought -- well, that got 

resolved later at a trial. But the way I read it, there is no 

later if you have that kind of case. Right? If you have --

certainly in a Chapter 7, but maybe in a Chapter 11 with a 

discharge -- and again, I want to put the personal-injury thing 

to see whether that has to be treated differently -- it's all 

over, right? 

MR. ORSINI: So you're talking -- we put personal 

injury aside. 

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ORSINI: Now we're just talking property claims?

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So my last preliminary question, 

then I'll shut up for a while -- and maybe I just missed this 

in the papers, but where in phase 3 is the Ghost Ship trial --

Ghost Ship fire, not trial; excuse me. I just read this 

morning the jury's out on the seventh day today in the criminal 

trial. But I -- there's a lot of focus in the papers, about 

the wildfires --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- certainly Tubbs. But is Ghost Ship, in 

your mind, part of the phase 3 as well? 

MR. ORSINI: Not as part of our proposal, Your Honor. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 19

of 341
20

PG&E Corp., 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 think --

THE COURT: Well, then what do we do with it? 

MR. ORSINI: Well, that's a good question, Your Honor. 

We could ultimately fold it into phase 3 if we needed to. We 

think that's one where the liability is even more attenuated 

than in any of the other cases.

THE COURT: Well, yeah, but somebody --

MR. ORSINI: And --

THE COURT: -- has to --

MR. ORSINI: And if --

THE COURT: -- come to terms with it.

MR. ORSINI: -- if we cannot resolve that claim, Your 

Honor, that one, I think, can be dealt with in its own 

estimation process that would require very little time by the 

Court.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ORSINI: It's obviously an important claim --

THE COURT: -- I don't know whether --

MR. ORSINI: -- for the victims.

THE COURT: I mean, does AB 1054 cover the Ghost Ship 

fire? Again --

MR. ORSINI: I --

THE COURT: -- it's a fire --

MR. ORSINI: I --

THE COURT: -- and it's a tragedy, but it's not --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 20

of 341
21

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: I don't --

THE COURT: -- called a wildfire. 

MR. ORSINI: I don't believe so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, okay.

MR. ORSINI: I'd have to -- I'd have to examine that 

more. But my understanding, the read of 1054, is that it's 

related to the wildfire victims. 

THE COURT: We don't have to decide that today. And 

there may be lawyers here in the room that have strong feelings

(ph.) one way or the other. I don't want to waste time on it 

today. The point is -- and we spend all of -- most of 

yesterday and a lot of today looking at that June 30th clock 

and wondering is it going to be state court, is it going to be 

this court, is it going to be a district court, is it going to 

be something else. I don't want to say, "Oh, by the way, we 

forgot about Ghost Ship" and have --

MR. ORSINI: Oh, and I understand that, Your Honor. 

And the way we thought about this as we were constructing the 

motion, because we thought about this issue -- as Your Honor 

said yesterday, we're here in this court because of the '17 and 

'18 wildfires. The Ghost Ship fire can be treated in a variety 

of ways. One possibility might even be to allow those claims 

to ride through. 

THE COURT: Well, that's right. That --

MR. ORSINI: So we -- I don't think any of that's been 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 21

of 341
22

PG&E Corp., 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

decided yet, which is why we focused this motion on the 

wildfires.

THE COURT: Well, but it seemed -- okay, that's good 

enough for me. And I don't know that -- I don't know that 

anybody else could force on the debtor an explanation that it 

doesn't want to make. I guess the question is, at some point 

if we get to there, the debtors will have to decide -- well, 

excuse me, let me not act like it's out there in the future. 

If sometime in the near future there is scheduling of phase 3, 

the question that I would ask if I'm the scheduler is, is Ghost 

Ship in or out? And somebody on your side will have to say --

and --

MR. ORSINI: And our view, as I stand here right now, 

is it's out. 

THE COURT: I got you. Okay. Well, I've got some 

other questions, but let me be quiet for a while because I've 

used up some of your thirty minutes. 

MR. ORSINI: No problem, Your Honor.

So, in terms of opening remarks, Your Honor, I want to 

start today actually precisely where you started yesterday, 

which is, we all understand the reason we're here is because of 

the tragic 2017 and 2018 wildfires. We know that entire towns 

were destroyed, people's lives were changed forever. We can't 

lose sight of that. And the reason we're in this bankruptcy 

court is to try to find the quickest and most efficient way to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 22

of 341
23

PG&E Corp., 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

provide compensation to those wildfire victims who are entitled 

to compensation. And we made clear from the first day of these 

cases that that's what we want to do. We had made tremendous 

efforts, between the filing and today, to try to resolve these, 

because I think all of us, the Court included, would love for 

this to be resolved consensually. 

You heard Mr. Karotkin and Mr. Feldman yesterday 

acknowledge that we are in very active discussions with the 

subrogation insurers. If Your Honor read our financial 

statements that were issued last Friday, you'd see that, as of 

the date of that filing -- I'm sure you have plenty of other 

things to read, Your Honor. But as of the date of that filing, 

we had made an offer to the subrogation insurers, of 8.5 

billion dollars to resolve their claims. 

THE COURT: Well, you shouldn't be telling me about --

MR. ORSINI: No, Your Honor --

THE COURT: -- the settlement discussion. 

MR. ORSINI: -- this --

THE COURT: I mean, if it's public, obviously --

MR. ORSINI: This is all public. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: This is all public, Your Honor. 

And we haven't gotten there yet with the subrogation 

insurers, but we're going to continue, and we're going to 

continue regardless of what Your Honor's ruling is today. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 23

of 341
24

PG&E Corp., 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've also tried very hard to resolve the individual 

claims. And again, this is another public number. We have 

offered, to date, to fund a trust of up to seven-and-a-half 

billion dollars to cover the individual claims. 

And just to put that number in context -- to put that 

number in context, if you look at the Camp fire, for example, 

where the average home value pre-fire was roughly 300,000 

dollars or less, and you think about a 7-and-a-half billiondollar trust and you allocate a significant piece of that to 

Camp victims, and you add to that what the victims have already 

recovered from their insurers, it's an average recovery of over 

a million dollars a household; three to four times the pre-fire 

property value. 

The problem we face is we are very far apart. And 

that's why we filed this motion. You heard -- you've heard 

from the TCC that they believe their total damages figure is 

fifty-four billion dollars. There's actually no analysis 

behind that; they've conceded that. It's a simple math 

exercise, looking at a different fire. 

And so the reason we've come here with the estimation 

procedure we proposed is to try to get the parties to close 

that gap and to have a mechanism, if we can't close that gap, 

to ultimately resolve these claims. 

THE COURT: But you agree with me that if we -- it 

seems to me, regardless of how I rule on the exclusivity 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 24

of 341
25

PG&E Corp., 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

motions, and maybe dependent upon relief from stay, but maybe 

not, we've got to get on with an estimation.

MR. ORSINI: A hundred percent, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And on the morning of the estimation 

trial, if you announce there's a settlement, you will --

MR. ORSINI: I --

THE COURT: -- be welcomed with --

MR. ORSINI: I think we've all seen that before.

THE COURT: -- open arms by somebody. But --

MR. ORSINI: I think we've all seen that before. 

THE COURT: But the point is we have to get on with 

it. And it seems to me that, no matter what, one plan or two 

plans or three plans, estimation has to get --

MR. ORSINI: The --

THE COURT: -- up in the queue; right? 

MR. ORSINI: The ad hoc bondholder plan is entirely 

contingent upon an estimation hearing. Mr. Feldman's plan has 

holes in it that will have to be subject to estimation.

THE COURT: But it still has --

MR. ORSINI: Our plan --

THE COURT: -- an estimation --

MR. ORSINI: -- will require estima -- you cannot 

escape the fact --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ORSINI: -- that we have to estimate here and we 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 25

of 341
26

PG&E Corp., 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

have to get started. And there've actually been --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- I think, three key statements made by 

stakeholders, that are relevant to both this motion and the 

interrelated Tubbs motion, over the previous week or so. The 

first one was when Mr. Kornberg was in this courtroom last week 

on behalf of the CPUC. And he made clear that, for them to run 

their process, they need a plan before them --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ORSINI: -- sometime in the January time frame.

THE COURT: No, I know. I know. 

MR. ORSINI: You heard Ms. Dumas yesterday say, until 

we get Tubbs resolved, until we get into some estimation of the 

ultimate damages and guidance from a court, they're not even in 

a position to begin to evaluate whether to support a plan.

And as it relates to the Tubbs lift-stay motion, as 

the TCC has conceded, the earliest that trial could start, in 

an ideal world, which this is not -- the earliest that trial 

could start is January.

THE COURT: No, I know that --

MR. ORSINI: And so we don't --

THE COURT: -- and I -- that's on my list --

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: -- to ask --

MR. ORSINI: And so, Your Honor -- so --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 26

of 341
27

PG&E Corp., 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: -- someone on the other side. 

MR. ORSINI: -- I come back to exactly what you just 

said, which is that we have to get going with estimation. 

Everybody concedes that. We need to start now.

So we have way too many pages of briefs. There are a 

whole host of issues that have been put in; I couldn't even 

hope to touch all of them. I think there're key issues that I 

would like to address, subject to Your Honor's additional 

questions.

THE COURT: Well, and let me interrupt you again. The 

inverse-condemnation one --

MR. ORSINI: Yes.

THE COURT: -- again, without expressing my own 

opinion, because I only read the briefs, it's -- I don't --

this is going to sound wrong, so I better be careful what I 

say. It's a big issue, but it's not a difficult one to put my 

arms around and to brief and to think about how to deal with 

it, because it's a pure legal question. 

MR. ORSINI: It's a hundred-percent right, Your Honor, 

which is why it's --

THE COURT: And --

MR. ORSINI: -- dealt with often --

THE COURT: But the --

MR. ORSINI: -- on either a summary-adjudication 

motion --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 27

of 341
28

PG&E Corp., 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: Right. But the question --

MR. ORSINI: -- or a motion to dismiss.

THE COURT: But the question is why can't it be phased 

later? In other words, anything that I make -- anything 

that -- any decision that's made by the bankruptcy court or the 

district court at the trial level, if there's appeals, just 

like in the state court -- I mean --

MR. ORSINI: Right. 

THE COURT: -- I must have read five times in these 

papers that -- can't go to state court, because there might be 

appeals. Nobody mentioned that there might also be appeals 

here. I like to think nobody ever appeals my decisions, but 

that's not true. 

MR. ORSINI: Two --

THE COURT: So the point --

MR. ORSINI: Two reasons, Your Honor --

THE COURT: -- the point is --

MR. ORSINI: -- if I can just --

THE COURT: Yeah. Go ahead. 

MR. ORSINI: -- if I can address that question right 

off the bat --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ORSINI: -- on inverse condemnation, because I 

think it's easy to dispose with.

THE COURT: Yeah.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 28

of 341
29

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: Number one, Your Honor's going to have to 

address it. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: It's a critical gating question. There's 

some suggestion that it's actually not that material of a 

difference whether there's inverse or not. People wouldn't be 

fighting so hard about it if that were true.

THE COURT: Well, okay, but what if I didn't decide 

anything? What if the California Supreme Court tomorrow 

announced that they just repealed inverse condemnation? What 

do we do about the Tubbs -- is phase 2 over? 

MR. ORSINI: No. Phase 2 is not over, because you 

still have negligence claims with respect to Tubbs. So inverse 

condemnation is --

THE COURT: Even if the CAL FIRE report -- well, 

because you still have that uncertainty as to who caused it; 

right? 

MR. ORSINI: We -- well, we don't believe there's 

uncertainty as to cause. We have arguments that the CAL FIRE 

report was wrong. 

THE COURT: No --

MR. ORSINI: So even --

THE COURT: -- I know that.

MR. ORSINI: -- if Your Honor --

THE COURT: No, but I'm -- let me rephrase my question

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 29

of 341
30

PG&E Corp., 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

more specifically. If inverse condemnation is reversed --

MR. ORSINI: It's gone.

THE COURT: -- and -- let's say, by the California 

Supreme Court this week, then the bankruptcy court doesn't have 

to deal with it, but you still have to defend the theories that 

are alleged that PG&E was negligent --

MR. ORSINI: I absolutely --

THE COURT: -- anyway. 

MR. ORSINI: -- do, Your Honor, but the reason why 

it's important whether it's California Supreme Court, which 

it's not going to be, because it's not before them, or this 

court to deal with that upfront is because the difference 

between a strict-liability standard and a negligence standard 

and the impact that the relevant standard will have on, among 

other things, settlement positions is obvious.

THE COURT: Well, of course it's obvious, but we're 

back to -- we're back to estimation, because the -- regardless 

of what happens on inverse condemnation, whether a judge makes 

a legal question, it's one of those estimation questions that 

is simple, because it's a legal question.

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: But as we just discussed, the estimation 

of a situation where liability has to be proven or not 

proven -- it's complicated and it's --

MR. ORSINI: It is.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 30

of 341
31

PG&E Corp., 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: -- it's still an estimation. So suppose 

the California Supreme Court says, "No, the doctrine applies."

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum. 

THE COURT: You still have to win the estimation -- I 

mean the phase 2 trial or you suffer the same consequences; 

right? 

MR. ORSINI: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So for estimation purposes, is the strict 

liability or the negligence liability at all different? 

MR. ORSINI: Well, first of all, there are whole 

categories of damages --

THE COURT: Yeah, I know.

MR. ORSINI: -- that are only available under inverse, 

and those are the -- that category of damages is attorneys'

fees. There're statutory attorneys' fees for the trial lawyers 

if they prove inverse condemnation. And that -- if you just 

look at the bondholder plan --

THE COURT: Well, that's a lot of money. 

MR. ORSINI: -- it's billions of dollars --

THE COURT: Well, yes, I understand.

MR. ORSINI: -- is what they're seeking. So that's 

point number one. But point number two, Your Honor -- you're 

absolutely right that we still have to go to the estimation 

process, and we still have to deal with the causation, we still 

have to deal with the negligence. The reason we put inverse

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 31

of 341
32

PG&E Corp., 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

upfront is because, as you said, it's simple to deal with 

because it's a legal issue and, two, we do think, if Your Honor 

were to agree with us, that would have a material impact upon 

people's settlement posture --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ORSINI: -- and help drive us towards --

THE COURT: -- but if I agree with --

MR. ORSINI: -- a consensual resolution. 

THE COURT: -- if I disagree with you, that might have 

an --

MR. ORSINI: Also true.

THE COURT: -- impact too.

MR. ORSINI: That's the risk we're taking.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. ORSINI: That --

THE COURT: But what I'm getting at is this, and now 

this is why I want to get to that -- it's the morning of phase 

2. And --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum. 

THE COURT: -- once again, let's not worry about who 

the person in the black robe is. Let's talk about what the 

assignment is. And that person in the black robe is either 

going to preside over a three-week trial or a two-week trial or 

a six- -- four-week trial. I doubt that it's going to be the 

kind of trial that some of the PI lawyers believe exist, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 32

of 341
33

PG&E Corp., 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

because I don't think the Bankruptcy Code anticipates that. 

And you and I have read the cases. There have been cases where 

judges have held mini-trials for half a day or one expert per 

side. 

Now -- but it would seem to me the estimator has to 

then take into account all these variables and make a bestjudgment call.

MR. ORSINI: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And it's not anything more -- it's not 

clear and convincing, it's not preponderance of the evidence; 

it's whatever the estimation persuades the trier of fact; 

right? 

MR. ORSINI: That's right, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Yeah, and that's why you get back --

that's why Bittner, for example, is so interesting, because 

it's one of those things where it's zero. I mean, it's like 

baseball arbitration, except it's zero. 

MR. ORSINI: Right. 

THE COURT: Right?

MR. ORSINI: But it's absolutely within your power --

or, let's say, the estimator's power to do that. That's the 

separate question. 

THE COURT: So --

MR. ORSINI: So have I addressed your question on 

inverse? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 33

of 341
34

PG&E Corp., 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: Well, I guess what I'm saying is this: I 

understand that a trial-court ruling on the inverse question 

has a big swing as to a portion of stuff. 

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: It still leaves open a big question about 

what is being determined by the estimator, under 502, on Tubbs. 

And that then gets to punitives and exemplary and attorneys' 

fees and contrib -- all the other things that might be part of 

a huge multi-week trial in a superior court or in --

MR. ORSINI: I --

THE COURT: -- a civil matter. 

MR. ORSINI: I completely agree with Your Honor that, 

even if we resolve inverse today, whichever way Your Honor 

rules, there're a lot of complicated issues left for phase 2. 

Our proposed approach is simply -- to use a phrase that's been 

used a couple times in this courtroom in the last couple days, 

there's a lot of wood to chop. And so we're trying to chop as 

much as we --

THE COURT: Well, I know, but you only --

MR. ORSINI: -- can now. 

THE COURT: -- put three weeks' worth of wood in the 

pile, and that's your proposal and, if acceptable, that's what 

the estimator would do. And if the estimator believes that the 

better thing to do is to have just competing experts testify, 

that's -- I mean, that's what all this very, very broad 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 34

of 341
35

PG&E Corp., 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

discretionary call by the trial -- by the judge is --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- so important, right? 

MR. ORSINI: That's right, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And that's -- and I'm saying this not to 

criticize our colleagues who don't come to bankruptcy very 

often. But as I read papers from the traditional and very 

qualified and capable personal-injury lawyers, I don't think 

they appreciate what the estimation process is, and so I want 

to make sure at least I'm understanding it correctly. And I 

welcome their counsel, their bankruptcy counsel, or themselves, 

to tell me if they think I got it wrong. 

But I've done over the years not a lot of work under 

502, because there isn't a lot of work, but I've read a lot 

about it and I know what the -- stakes are high, but they're 

not a trial. 

MR. ORSINI: You and I are on the same page, Your 

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: I've done fewer of those than you have. 

But I, too, have read the cases and I have "Karotkin on 

Bankruptcy" on call. 

And so --

THE COURT: I could give you a better source. 

(Laughter.)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 35

of 341
36

PG&E Corp., 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: No, I'm sorry, Mr. Karotkin. 

MR. ORSINI: We could talk about that later --

THE COURT: I didn't mean that. 

MR. ORSINI: -- Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: That was not true. 

MR. ORSINI: So, look, I think that segues into the 

bigger question here, and I think it also reflects a 

misunderstanding of both what the Bankruptcy Code provides and 

what estimation is. On this question of a capped trust and 

jury trials and whether or not we're trying to strip claimants 

of their rights to a jury trial as been (sic) suggested in the 

papers, in the San Francisco Chronicle, we're not. Okay?

THE COURT: Well, that's one of the things I'm going 

to make sure we're clear on, too. So I'm ready to go to more 

questions if you will let me. 

MR. ORSINI: Please, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay, so let's take one that I think is 

very, very difficult for me to even think about. And you've

heard it -- you've heard it in some discussions, it's in some 

of the briefs: the world of personal injury and wrongful 

death. We all learned torts in law school. And so you know,

and I think the OCC as well as the debtors, having addressed 

this in the brief, and certainly the TCC has addressed it --

where does emotional distress come within that litany or that 

coupling of those two words? And again, I will concede for the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 36

of 341
37

PG&E Corp., 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

moment that there may be other things that don't fit the label 

of emotional distress, that experienced tort lawyers, personalinjury lawyers, would easily know is part of it. 

So if we divide the universe that's found under -- in 

Section 28 U.S.C. 157(b) --

MR. ORSINI: (2).

THE COURT: -- (2), the Court -- bankruptcy court 

cannot estimate for distribution personal-injury, tort, and 

wrongful-death claims. And most of the other side says that 

includes emotional distress. So my first question is who makes 

that decision? In other words, if the decision is made, as 

part of the estimation, to have a district judge make the 

distribution decision, does that district judge also decide the 

emotional-distress in-or-out question or is that the bankruptcy 

judge's duty?

MR. ORSINI: Your Honor, my view is --

THE COURT: The statute's quiet on the subject. 

MR. ORSINI: My view -- and I think it's supported by 

the case law -- is that's a decision for you to make.

THE COURT: As part of the, sort of the, pre-trial 

teeing-up the question? 

MR. ORSINI: As part of the pre-trial teeing-up. 

Frankly, it could be as part of ruling on this motion, because 

it raises potentially -- and we don't actually think it does. 

I'll get to that question in a minute. But it raises 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 37

of 341
38

PG&E Corp., 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

potentially the judicial-officer question. 

But if you look at a variety of the cases that are 

cited by both sides, it is, I think, almost uniformly -- but I 

won't say "uniformly", because there're a lot of cases -- the 

bankruptcy judge who's making this determination. And 

sometimes it's in the context of estimation, sometimes it's in 

the context of dischargeability under Chapter 13 --

THE COURT: Well, I know, on --

MR. ORSINI: -- but -- and so I believe --

THE COURT: That's -- dischargeability's easy --

MR. ORSINI: Right. We --

THE COURT: -- because --

MR. ORSINI: But we believe --

THE COURT: -- nobody says a district judge needs to 

do that.

MR. ORSINI: We believe, even in this context, the 

bankruptcy court -- Your Honor -- has the ability to make the 

decision as to what is and is not intended by the words 

"personal-injury tort" in 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2).

THE COURT: Well, and the briefs on the other side 

suggest a broader approach. You're suggesting a narrow 

approach.

MR. ORSINI: Right. We don't agree on what the answer 

to that question is, but I don't -- I didn't see any suggestion 

that Your Honor can't answer that question.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 38

of 341
39

PG&E Corp., 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: Well, I don't -- no, I don't think anybody 

addressed it. But I addressed it, because, like -- look, 

I'm -- if I am going to make a recommendation to a district 

court to withdraw the reference in part --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: I mean, I guess I could make a 

recommendation to drop the whole thing and then I could take 

the next couple of months off. -- I have to be able to -- and 

by the way, anything that I say that I might do, obviously any 

party could do. So any party could make a motion today to 

withdraw a part or all of the reference. 

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: But I'm assuming that I have the 

responsibility -- and certainly our Local Rules contemplate 

that the bankruptcy judge is supposed to take care of the pretrial things that happen, until the matter is ready to go to 

the district judge. 

I -- again, some of the local lawyers would know that 

I was involved in several of the major-law-firm bankruptcy 

cases. Every managing partner in the United States knows about 

me, for that. But in the Heller bankruptcy in this court, I 

presided over all the pre-trial, every aspect: motions and 

everything else. But because some of the defendants did not 

consent to the jury, following the rules, I got the matter all 

ready to go, to what I thought was ready -- and the litigants 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 39

of 341
40

PG&E Corp., 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

agreed, too, that it was ready to be sent to the district court

to try it.

So I did all the preliminaries and then I made a 

recommendation for withdrawal, and the district judge took it 

and then he did something that I didn't agree with. But that 

was something else again.

MR. ORSINI: No, Your Honor, we agree that --

THE COURT: So, therefore --

MR. ORSINI: -- you are the authority.

THE COURT: -- Mr. Orsini, to get back to it, your 

view is that I would say to -- as -- well, as part of my 

recommendation to the district court, it's time for you to 

withdraw the reference, because I've had the preliminaries, 

I've dealt with the legal issues, and, by the way, I've dealt 

with a piece of the personal-injury and wrongful-death analysis 

by saying that that includes or excludes emotional distress and 

anything related to it. And that's your view is that would be 

what I would do. And then presumably, the district court, I 

guess, would take what is left and act on it.

MR. ORSINI: Our view, Your Honor, is we don't have to 

get to that point, because you have the power to do all of 

this. But that's a different question. If Your Honor 

concludes that some of this has to go upstairs, then, yes, the 

process you've articulated, we agree, is the right approach.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay. And I presume you know this, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 40

of 341
41

PG&E Corp., 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

I mean, because you've said it, because the papers say it: 

we're back to the estimation. Whether it's a district judge or 

bankruptcy judge, the parties will weigh in on how they think 

the estimation should proceed.

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: But it's pretty much the discretion of the 

court. 

MR. ORSINI: As to how the process works? Hundred 

percent --

THE COURT: Well, yes.

MR. ORSINI: -- Your Honor. 

THE COURT: I use --

MR. ORSINI: Hundred percent.

THE COURT: -- the hypothetical of one witness per 

side, three-day -- I mean three-week trial. Some judges have 

times. I believe, in the Archdiocese (sic) of Portland case, 

the judge, unless I'm confusing that with Dow -- I forget which 

one of them, the judge just allocated time to both sides. 

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: I mean, there're all sorts of things to

do. But at the end of the day when it's done, the judge says, 

"I estimate the liability," if it's my hypothetical, "Orsini's 

claim is 500,000 dollars," or "I estimate that all of the 

victims of the fires" or a particular fire, is whatever figure 

I estimate. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 41

of 341
42

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: That's all correct, Your --

THE COURT: So the TCC, in its papers, says we have to 

have hearings for every fire. Is it a different estimation

hearing for every fire, or is it, in the aggregate, all the 

fires?

MR. ORSINI: Again, I think that's a question that's 

entirely up to Your Honor. 

THE COURT: It's part of the estimat --

MR. ORSINI: Our --

THE COURT: -- part of the estimation question.

MR. ORSINI: As part of the estimation process and the 

inherent discretion that Your Honor has, or whomever the 

estimator, to use your language, is. And so that would be up 

to you. We'll follow your lead.

Our view is that this is all part of a single 

estimation process to estimate the 2017 and 2018 wildfire 

claims. And so we don't need it formally to be we have a 

hearing today on the Atlas fire, a separate hearing, for formal 

purposes, tomorrow on the Cascade fire. We do think there will 

be fire-specific issues, but we think it's part of the overall 

estimation process to get to the --

THE COURT: But --

MR. ORSINI: -- aggregate liabilities.

THE COURT: But your view, Mr. Orsini, is that when 

the matter's submitted for decision by that judge, it's one 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 42

of 341
43

PG&E Corp., 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

figure, not twenty figures?

MR. ORSINI: Well, Your Honor, I don't --

THE COURT: Or is that -- is that correct?

MR. ORSINI: I don't know, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: I don't think that -- to be candid, I 

don't think we've solved that question yet. And part of the 

reason why our phase 3 is, to criticize my own plan, a little 

bit of a kick-the-can-down-the-road, is we need to get started, 

in our views, on 1 and 2, but we wanted to meet and confer with 

all the stakeholders, to figure out if there's a way to 

simplify, because it will be easier if we don't have to go fire 

by fire. There may be circumstances in which we do.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ORSINI: And I think that issue is still open, 

Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- again, we're back to my assignment. If 

my assignment is to do it, then, fine, I'll do it. If my 

assignment is to tee it up for another judge to take some or 

all of it --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- because I'm sure there are people that 

agree -- don't agree with you that I can somehow dice it into 

parts and say, okay, we'll set aside the PI and wrongful death 

but we'll do everything else over here. There're a lot of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 43

of 341
44

PG&E Corp., 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

people in this room that probably don't agree with that. 

And -- but in any event, it would seem to me that if I have to 

make the recommendation to the district judge, I have to --

MR. ORSINI: This would be part of that. 

THE COURT: -- articulate --

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- what I believe he or she should -- will 

be inheriting.

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I -- let's see; the way we 

are on the time -- I've been using up almost all your time. 

Shall we --

MR. ORSINI: Your questions are the important ones, 

Your Honor. But if I could for a moment, just for one 

moment --

THE COURT: Yeah. 

MR. ORSINI: -- kind of segue off what we were just 

discussing.

THE COURT: Sure. Sure. 

MR. ORSINI: The TCC, in particular, has set the 

dispute up as to whether or not there is an ability for this 

Court or the court upstairs to use estimation for the purposes

of creating a capped trust. And there's a subquestion, within

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 44

of 341
45

PG&E Corp., 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

that, of which judge has to do which piece of it, and a further 

subquestion as to what's personal injury and what's not. 

But let me stay with the headline, the headline 

question of can one of this Court or the court upstairs 

estimate these claims, all of these claims, for the purposes of 

creating a capped trust? The answer to that question is 

unambiguously yes. There's not a single case that is cited, in 

a single one of the hundreds of pages of briefing, that says 

that is not available. The two cases they rely on the most --

and I won't spend time on it, because I know Your Honor has 

read them. But the two cases they cite the most are the 

Portland case and the Dow case. 

The Dow case is dicta. It explicitly says they don't 

need to reach that issue. The Portland case does suggest that 

Your Honor couldn't do that, but makes it very clear that the 

district court could do that with respect to the personalinjury claims.

THE COURT: Well, but do what? 

MR. ORSINI: Estimate the claims --

THE COURT: Yeah?

MR. ORSINI: -- for the purposes of creating a capped 

trust --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ORSINI: -- which is then the recourse --

THE COURT: Right.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 45

of 341
46

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: -- for the claimants, post-emergence, to 

liquidate their claims.

THE COURT: But what does that mean, to liquidate the 

claims?

MR. ORSINI: So what that means, to liquidate their 

claims, can take a variety of forms.

THE COURT: Well, but that's what I think is a very 

critical question, because --

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor. And so I'll address it. 

So the way that these trusts typically work, and the 

way we would foresee this trust working here, would be that --

let's pick a number. Your Honor says ten billion dollars goes 

into these trusts post-confirmation. At that point, there will 

be trustees appointed, there will be matrices developed in 

coordination with the TCC, with the lawyers for the individual 

claimants, and the trustee, to come up with basically a 

settlement offer --

THE COURT: Right. No, I'm --

MR. ORSINI: -- here's your allocation --

THE COURT: Well, that's --

MR. ORSINI: -- you could take that --

THE COURT: But that goes all the way back --

MR. ORSINI: And --

THE COURT: -- to even pre-524 --

MR. ORSINI: Absolutely.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 46

of 341
47

PG&E Corp., 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: -- (g) asbestos --

MR. ORSINI: And if people like that, they take it, 

and they get paid quickly. If people don't like that, there're 

other mechanisms. And at the end of road -- and this is the 

critical point; at the end of the road, if they're not 

comfortable with the matrix or potentially a mediation, they 

have the right -- they still have the right to go to California 

state court, pursue a jury trial to have that jury liquidate 

their claim. And then once they have that verdict that says, 

your claim is worth 100,000 dollars, they walk over to the 

trust, present that claim, and they get paid.

THE COURT: Yeah, but what if the trust is not --

doesn't that mean, therefore, there's a redistribution of 

what's in the trust? That's what I think is unclear, and I 

need you to help me. 

So you're the trustee and you are sitting on three --

well, again, I want to go back to a simple case, okay?

MR. ORSINI: Okay.

THE COURT: You're sitting on 100,000 dollars and you 

believe that there're ten claimants and you come up with a 

matrix to divide up how that 100,000 is going to be shared 

among ten people. 

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum. 

THE COURT: But one of the ten says, "I want my jury 

trial."

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 47

of 341
48

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: Yep. 

THE COURT: And he goes to trial and he gets a 

500,000-dollar judgment. Does he get -- does that 500,000 go 

into the 100,000 pot, or does it go -- stay outside and he 

tries to collect it somewhere else? Because that's --

MR. ORSINI: No. It stays --

THE COURT: -- what's unclear. 

MR. ORSINI: -- within the pot.

THE COURT: Well, then the point is --

MR. ORSINI: And this --

THE COURT: -- then the point is it is a cap.

MR. ORSINI: It is -- I'm not disputing that it's a 

cap. It's a hundred percent a cap. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: And that is exactly what has happened in 

every one of the --

THE COURT: Then -- I know, but --

MR. ORSINI: -- asbestos cases. It's what happened 

in --

THE COURT: -- but I got to --

MR. ORSINI: -- Portland. 

THE COURT: But I have to know what happens in this 

case.

MR. ORSINI: Right. And what happens in this case, 

Your Honor, I think, is exactly what happened in all of those. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 48

of 341
49

PG&E Corp., 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: It's not what happened in Corning, though.

MR. ORSINI: Okay -- actually it is, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ORSINI: At the end of the whole process in 

Corning, the court estimated a present-value amount that needed 

to go into a trust to fund the breast-implant claims. And 

there were objectors who said, I don't think this is going to 

be enough. And the court said very clearly, in the 

confirmation order, listen, we went through an estimation 

process, the court made a determination that it believes the 

estimated amount that's going into the trust is enough. And 

while there's some risk that the trust ultimately won't be 

enough, that's the court's job: to try and prevent against 

that risk and --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- come up with a number --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- that provides recourse.

THE COURT: And I think Ms. Dumas made the statement 

some time ago, and I -- it's been on my mind. There's a simple 

solution: don't put a cap or have it so high that you got 

everybody accounted for. That's obviously not your intention 

and that's not the bondholders' or the subrogation's plan at 

the moment. 

No, but what that means is that, if you get -- if you 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 49

of 341
50

PG&E Corp., 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

get your trust and the class of impaired creditors votes --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- that's fine; you've got yourself that 

confirmation item out of the way.

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: But if there's one person, just one 

person, who says, "I want my jury," that person gets his jury 

somewhere, sometime, but all he does is goes back into the pot; 

he doesn't have -- it doesn't pass through like --

MR. ORSINI: That's --

THE COURT: You even said that maybe the company will 

choose to let the Ghost Ship people pass through, which is your 

choice. But for the vast majority of victims of the wildfires, 

their choice is to have their jury trial, but it's still going 

to go back into the pool.

MR. ORSINI: That's right, Your Honor. And this is --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- this is not novel. This is exactly --

THE COURT: Well, I know it's not novel, but it's one 

of those things that wasn't so clear. 

MR. ORSINI: I understand, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And that's why I asked Mr. Karotkin before 

to be prepared to explain what was in a footnote in the prior 

brief, and you're explaining it and --

MR. ORSINI: That's why he sent me up here, Your 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 50

of 341
51

PG&E Corp., 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

Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah -- no, no, I'm not negotiating with 

you. I just want to make sure I know what the rules are.

MR. ORSINI: No, you absolutely understand correctly 

what we have in mind, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So -- but a number of the lawyers on the 

other side have cited over and over again 157(b)(5) and 28 

U.S.C. 1411. 

MR. ORSINI: Right. 

THE COURT: Is that just hollow? Does that just mean 

it's good news, bad news: the good news is you get your jury

trial; the bad news is it doesn't make much difference?

MR. ORSINI: Well, I would --

THE COURT: I mean, that's what it sounds like.

MR. ORSINI: No, no, I don't agree with that, Your 

Honor. It's not that it doesn't make much difference. You 

have the opportunity to go against the trust. And in 

estimating the amount that goes into the trust, the Court is 

looking at what are the likely outcomes of those cases. 

THE COURT: I know, but we're back to the relevance 

and the significance of the estimation process. 

MR. ORSINI: Right. And on this point, Your Honor --

I think that's the critical point -- there is absolutely no 

right to a jury, with respect to estimation --

THE COURT: I know. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 51

of 341
52

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: -- whether it's an estimation --

THE COURT: Well, I --

MR. ORSINI: -- done here or upstairs. 

THE COURT: -- I believe that that's what the law 

says. 

MR. ORSINI: That --

THE COURT: I want to hear if anybody says that's not 

the law. 

MR. ORSINI: And, Your Honor, they've said that. They 

haven't cited any law that actually supports --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ORSINI: -- that proposition.

THE COURT: -- when Ms. Dumas -- if she's going to 

argue, or if Mr. Julian argues, I will ask about a couple of 

questions in their briefs and see what they meant by that. But 

you're making it -- I'm not surprised by your answer; I just 

want to make sure it's on the table so we all know what --

maybe they all know it from you, but I haven't heard it from 

you before.

MR. ORSINI: Okay. 

THE COURT: So 157(b)(5) is kind of meaningless, 

right? It says whether you get the district judge in Northern 

District or some other district. Here, all the fires were in 

the Northern District. So -- or, no, that's not true.

MR. ORSINI: It's not true, actually. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 52

of 341
53

PG&E Corp., 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: There might be some in the Eastern 

District.

MR. ORSINI: Yeah. 

THE COURT: So if some of the fires were in the 

Eastern District and they go to a trial, the statute says which 

district it's tried in. That's about the only thing (b)(5) 

says, right?

MR. ORSINI: Right. And that's something that we deal 

with --

THE COURT: And that's --

MR. ORSINI: -- after emergence. 

THE COURT: -- that's --

MR. ORSINI: That's right. 

THE COURT: -- not of significance today.

MR. ORSINI: No, it's not. 

THE COURT: But what is the reference to 1411? 

MR. ORSINI: The reference to 1411 is that you cannot 

liquidate a claim without preserving a jury right, if one 

exists. 

THE COURT: But --

MR. ORSINI: And we're not running --

THE COURT: Yeah --

MR. ORSINI: -- we're not running afoul of that here, 

Your Honor.

THE COURT: And you're saying, but one doesn't exist?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 53

of 341
54

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: No -- well, no. I'm --

THE COURT: No -- well, it exists, but for estimation 

purposes. 

MR. ORSINI: Right, for estimation purposes, 1411 does 

not --

THE COURT: So if we --

MR. ORSINI: -- come into play.

THE COURT: -- if we got all the personal-injury 

lawyers who've never been in bankruptcy before and we line them 

up for a little CLE, we'd say, "We got this Section 1411 that 

preserves things for you, and it preserves your jury right, if 

one exists. But by the way, under 157(b)(2), it doesn't 

exist"? 

MR. ORSINI: It does not exist for estimation 

purposes.

THE COURT: It doesn't exist except to liquidate your 

claim and put it back into the --

MR. ORSINI: Right, because there's --

THE COURT: -- pool. 

MR. ORSINI: -- there's estimation, which is not 

dealing with a particular claim; it's dealing with the 

aggregate, where you can't actually liquidate. 

THE COURT: Correct. 

MR. ORSINI: Where no individual claim is actually 

valued for distribution, no individual claim is actually 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 54

of 341
55

PG&E Corp., 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

liquidated. We're estimating an aggregate to ensure that 

there's an adequate pool of sum -- of money for the eventual 

liquidation post-confirmation. And the jury-trial right runs 

through right with that trust.

THE COURT: So in my hypothetical where you're the 

only claimant because you have an intellectual-property claim 

against the bankruptcy trustee, the court will estimate your 

claim. If Mr. Karotkin happens to also have a claim for 

personal injury, maybe he gets his jury right preserved. But 

at the end of the day, Mr. Karotkin's claim and your claim are 

shared and dealt with pari passu or pro rata out of the fund. 

Neither one of you -- yours because it's been estimated 

without -- with the bankruptcy judge; his because maybe it's an 

Article III judge, maybe it's not. Either way, the estimation 

is, at the end of the day, for the amount of money you're going 

to -- maximum amount of money you're going to recover. 

MR. ORSINI: So in Your Honor's --

THE COURT: Right? 

MR. ORSINI: -- hypothetical where it's an individual

claim, I suppose the answer's yes. 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. ORSINI: But I think the important thing to 

emphasize here is we're not talking about individual claims. 

THE COURT: No, I know that, but --

MR. ORSINI: We're talking about the aggregate --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 55

of 341
56

PG&E Corp., 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: -- but that's because you have --

MR. ORSINI: Too many.

THE COURT: -- tens of thousands of them.

MR. ORSINI: Right. Exactly right. 

THE COURT: But in my hypothetical, you only had two. 

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: But the same result applies.

MR. ORSINI: Well, I think the result's actually a 

little bit different, because in the hypothetical you've 

described, you were actually fixing a value to my claim, you're 

fixing a value to Mr. Karotkin's claim, presumably less than 

the value of my claim --

THE COURT: But I figured -- but I set the pot ahead 

of time.

MR. ORSINI: You set the pot ahead of time --

THE COURT: I didn't liquidate your --

MR. ORSINI: -- with that calculation. 

THE COURT: -- your intellectual-property claim or his 

tort claim. But I said, guess what, guys, you got 100,000, 

that's all you're going to share. 

MR. ORSINI: And that's what happened in Portland 

ultimately.

THE COURT: And that's what happens in the real 

world --

MR. ORSINI: Yes.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 56

of 341
57

PG&E Corp., 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: -- in -- every single time you ever do an 

estimation like this. 

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.

So, look, on this broader question of which judicial 

officer has to decide the issue, there are really two questions

in my mind; number one is, is the type of estimation that we're 

talking about an estimation for distribution purposes? 

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. ORSINI: Because if it's not, we don't have to 

talk about 157(b)(2).

THE COURT: But isn't it? 

MR. ORSINI: I don't believe it is, Your Honor. I 

don't believe it is, because it goes back to the point that 

we're not in a hypothetical where it's one or two claims.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ORSINI: No individual claim is fixed for 

distribution. No individual claim is valued. The distribution 

liquidation happens later. 

And so while -- look, what I'm arguing is not what 

Judge Perris found, right? In the Portland case, she rejected 

my argument. Respectfully, I think she was wrong about that. 

And if you look at all of the other cases that have dealt with 

capped trusts, in the asbestos context in particular, they did 

exactly that. And because we're not actually distributing 

anything to any particular claimant, we don't believe 157(b)(2) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 57

of 341
58

PG&E Corp., 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

even applies, and Your Honor can do it all.

But if Your Honor doesn't believe that, if Your Honor 

doesn't agree, that doesn't mean we're in a scenario with no 

capped trust. It certainly doesn't mean that we're in a 

scenario where we're going now to state court to try the Tubbs 

claims.

THE COURT: Well, if I am persuaded to grant relief 

from stay -- and maybe that happens, but maybe that's not the 

end of the stay. I mean, maybe we still have to deal with the 

estimation. I think you made that clear. 

MR. ORSINI: Well, we absolutely still have to deal 

with the estimation. 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. ORSINI: And that's one of the big reasons why 

Your Honor shouldn't grant the stay relief. But that's my 

argument for this afternoon.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ORSINI: But the point, Your Honor, is, if you 

decide that Judge Perris was right, that estimation, for the 

purposes of creating a capped trust, is tantamount to 

distribution for personal-injury claims. It's not the end of 

the story. That just means, as Your Honor's put it, which 

judicial officer --

THE COURT: Okay --

MR. ORSINI: -- is dealing with it. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 58

of 341
59

PG&E Corp., 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: -- but let's defer that --

MR. ORSINI: Okay.

THE COURT: -- and let's come back to, okay, when does 

this distribution analysis take place. Let's suppose that 

we're going to follow Judge Perris' rule. 

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: When does it happen? In other words, now 

it's June 29th, plan's ready to be confirmed, and the -- this 

Court has determined the amounts for plan purposes.

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: When do you do the distrib -- and now it's 

July 1st --

MR. ORSINI: When do you figure out the matrix? 

THE COURT: -- and the plan's effective and 

everything's ready to go. When does the -- does somebody do 

the distribution analysis?

MR. ORSINI: You could do that in a variety of 

different ways, Your Honor. We --

THE COURT: But when and how?

MR. ORSINI: We -- well, one way is --

THE COURT: Leave aside again who the judge is. 

MR. ORSINI: One way is -- and it may not even involve 

the judge. Whichever judge it is.

THE COURT: Well, of course --

MR. ORSINI: One --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 59

of 341
60

PG&E Corp., 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: -- any compromise doesn't involve --

MR. ORSINI: Right, if you compromise. Or another 

possibility is, if Your Honor or the judge upstairs has decided 

that it's X billion dollars that's going into the trust, that 

that's sufficient, a determination Your Honor's going to have 

to make, no matter what, because of 1054, that the wildfire 

victims are being paid in full -- it could be set up so that 

the ultimate distribution mechanism of that X billion dollars 

is something that's done by the trustee who's appointed to 

manage that trust. 

So it could be done after the fact, by the trustee, 

working with the TCC and potentially the reorganized debtors, 

or it could be done in advance if there's no agreement on how 

it's done in advance.

THE COURT: But every time you say "agreement", I'm on 

board. But what if there's no agreement? And let's take 

our -- let's take our minority -- let's say you get class 

acceptance of the fund --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- under a cap, and the minority -- a 

smaller number of victims say, "I want my jury. I want an 

Article III judge to determine the distribution component." 

When does that happen? 

MR. ORSINI: When does that happen? Postconfirmation, Your Honor. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 60

of 341
61

PG&E Corp., 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 in what context? In other words, if a 

jury or an Article III judge determines the entitlement, 

somebody then -- isn't it just a pure mathematical calculation 

of what the distribution is?

MR. ORSINI: Yes. 

THE COURT: Well, so it --

MR. ORSINI: If --

THE COURT: -- it could be done by an ATM machine. 

No, I mean, it's --

MR. ORSINI: Well, it'll --

THE COURT: Could be done by computer. 

MR. ORSINI: It'll be done -- it'll be done by the 

trustee. That'll be part of the trustee's role.

THE COURT: I know, but it's just a -- it's just a 

pure math calculation. It's --

MR. ORSINI: At that point it is. 

THE COURT: It's -- the numerator is how many 

claimants and the denominator's how much money you have. End 

of story, right? 

MR. ORSINI: Well, no, I think it's more complicated 

than that, Your Honor. I think -- because the trust will 

ultimately be funding the claims of disparate sets of wildfire 

plaintiffs, some of whom lost an outbuilding that wasn't 

insured, some of whom lost a house. Someone may have --

THE COURT: Well --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 61

of 341
62

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: -- lost a home that's worth X dollars --

THE COURT: Right, but that's -- we're back to our --

there's separate analysis per fire and then per --

MR. ORSINI: I think this is a slightly different 

issue --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Maybe it is. 

MR. ORSINI: There's the issue of the different 

situations fire by fire. But then for each fire, you're going 

to have potentially thousands, depending upon the size of the 

fire, of differently situated claimants --

THE COURT: Yes. Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- who post-confirmation will be able to 

go to the trust that's been created based upon your estimation, 

and they will be able to accept either the immediate cash 

payout based on a matrix that the trustee approves --

THE COURT: Okay. No, I understand your point. 

Then --

MR. ORSINI: Yeah. 

THE COURT: Then -- so for Victim A, you say, you only 

lost a --

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: -- broken-down trailer. And, Victim B, 

you suffered the loss of your home, and your personal injuries 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 62

of 341
63

PG&E Corp., 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 all these other things. And you have a different number to 

put into the matrix. And then that -- those two victims are 

given a choice: take that money or wait and --

MR. ORSINI: Have a trial.

THE COURT: -- have your claim -- whether it's 

superior court or district -- I got you. 

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. ORSINI: Okay?

THE COURT: All right, well, why don't we let the 

other people speak, because this isn't --

MR. ORSINI: Do you want to hear --

THE COURT: -- exactly the way --

MR. ORSINI: Do you want to hear me on what is 

personal injury and what is not, or should I wait to address 

that in rebuttal?

THE COURT: Well, I think I know that the issues are 

there, and I read it in the briefs. I -- I mean, I understand 

your point. Why don't -- I mean, I -- I guess -- look, I don't 

know that it's a decision I have to make today. In other 

words, I -- do you think I do? I mean, if I -- you've 

virtually stated that your opening proposal is your motion for 

estimation. But if I were to say, "Fine, I'm going to grant 

it," that doesn't mean it kicks into play; it means we have a 

discussion about the details.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 63

of 341
64

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: And that's why we called it an 

estimation-procedures motion, Your Honor. That's exactly 

right. I agree with that. 

THE COURT: Well, I understand, but I don't think 

that --

MR. ORSINI: I don't think you have to reach this 

issue today, because ultimately, however the Court defines the 

box of personal-injury claims, whether it's as broad as they 

argue or as narrow as we argue --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ORSINI: -- that relates to the judicial- --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ORSINI: -- officer question. 

THE COURT: I mean, let me give you a preview of 

coming attractions, okay? I'm going to -- I'm going to rule

one way or the other on the exclusivity. I still have to 

address today's motion for estimation. And I'm going to rule 

one way or the other on relief from stay. I don't think, if I 

were to grant the motion for relief from stay, we table the 

estimation. I think you've agreed -- I think most of the 

lawyers probably agree. 

So to me, the issue that standalone is estimation --

and we hear these discussions and then we probably have to have 

a further hearing after there's some meet-and-confer and people 

start to talk about it. I mean, I can say I don't think I 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 64

of 341
65

PG&E Corp., 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

should do this or I do that, but I don't -- I'm not prepared to 

make anything concrete. In other words, obviously, if I'm 

persuaded to grant relief from stay, that's going to influence 

the estimation decision. 

So I would anticipate a hearing in the very near 

future, to discuss the mechanics of estimation with details 

like, okay, when's the briefing going to be on this, when's the 

pre-trial, when's the discovery, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: Okay, I hope that's clear enough for now.

MR. ORSINI: I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I think it's -- is it consistent with your 

understanding? You didn't go expecting to come out of here 

with your scheduling order for estimation, did you? 

MR. ORSINI: I understand there're still issues to be 

discussed, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Well, but I'm not making light of this.

MR. ORSINI: No, no, I understand --

THE COURT: There are --

MR. ORSINI: -- very much what you're saying. 

THE COURT: -- a number of issues -- the fact that I 

have the questions -- I mean, I suspect other people have 

questions of, okay, even if there's an estimation, what are we 

doing about all these other things? And many of the opposing 

papers certainly teed up the question. I didn't make them all 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 65

of 341
66

PG&E Corp., 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

up. I read many of the papers filed by other people. 

MR. ORSINI: Understood, Your Honor. And --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: And it comes back to what was our purpose 

in filing the motion --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ORSINI: -- which is --

THE COURT: Fine.

MR. ORSINI: -- we have to get moving. And so --

THE COURT: I agree. 

MR. ORSINI: -- I think we're on the same page. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Let's see. So, OCC. Sorry, we -- I took 

a lot of Mr. Orsini's time, but --

MR. LEBLANC: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- this is important. So --

MR. LEBLANC: Yes, Your Honor. Andrew Leblanc of 

Milbank Tweed -- Milbank -- sorry -- on behalf of the official 

committee. 

Your Honor, I'll be brief because you did --

THE COURT: You can go back with your old name if you 

want to. 

MR. LEBLANC: Well, not a fight to have with Your 

Honor about that.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 66

of 341
67

PG&E Corp., 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

I'll be brief because Mr. Orsini did cover a lot of 

it, and I want to mainly respond to Your Honor's -- any 

questions that Your Honor may have for us. But our role here, 

and this has been discussed over the last several hearings --

we are -- we're truly stewards of this process, trying to get 

the process right, to move this forward. 

To be clear, the July -- or the June 30th deadline has 

a lot that's playing in this. But there are other components 

of -- even before AB 1054 was passed, there was an absolute 

need for us to process through this case as quickly as 

possible. And the debtors' motion is an effort to do that. 

And nobody meaningfully disagrees with that. 

And here I think it's impossible to not talk about the 

two motions that are on for hearing --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. LEBLANC: -- together, because you really do have

in some respects a choice, at least as it relates to the Tubbs 

question as to whether or not you use the process proposed by 

the tort-claim committee and the individual plaintiffs and the 

subrogation claimants, of going to state court, or you do so 

through the estimation process. 

And we have to keep in mind -- keep our eye on the 

ball here, and that is, yes, we have a June 30th deadline. We 

also need to process these cases so that people can get money. 

And that's been our mantra from the beginning, trying to push 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 67

of 341
68

PG&E Corp., 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

this process as quickly as possible, within the bounds of 

reason, to try to get to a resolution.

We have real concerns about the lift-stay motion as an 

alternative to an estimation proceeding. And the concerns 

there Mr. Orsini began to talk about, and Your Honor, I think, 

also talked about it a little bit: what everyone concedes on 

their side. But in the best of circumstances, they get to what 

looks like a four-week trial starting sometime in January, 

after which you get a jury verdict, which can go one of two 

ways with respect to the liability: either PG&E wins, in which 

case it literally has resolved nothing in these cases, because 

I'm certain that the TCC and any individual plaintiff would say 

that they would not -- they would view themselves as still free 

to challenge that. They wouldn't be bound by that decision 

if --

THE COURT: Oh, would they be? 

MR. LEBLANC: Well, I think, as a matter of law, they 

would not be. And so --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LEBLANC: -- it would resolve --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LEBLANC: -- literally nothing if they lost. But 

if -- even if they won, even if the litigants in that case won 

against PG&E, you then would have a liability determination, 

but you still would have to start a process for estimation for 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 68

of 341
69

PG&E Corp., 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 thousands and thousands of claims that are not part of that 

preference process. And nobody on that side --

THE COURT: Well, but you --

MR. LEBLANC: -- disputes that.

THE COURT: I mean, again, we're really kind of more 

on the relief from stay. But if a jury, whether it be the 

original eight people that the TCC asked for, or I think the 

count was up to thirteen when the --

MR. LEBLANC: Thirteen.

THE COURT: -- when the subro and then a number of 

other people weighed in. Doesn't matter. Some number of 

jurors whacked PG&E big-time. I suspect PG&E would get the 

message. And that might influence a more active discussion, if 

not a principle of a claim preclusion --

MR. LEBLANC: It may --

THE COURT: -- or, no -- or issue --

MR. LEBLANC: Well, no --

THE COURT: -- issue preclusion. 

MR. LEBLANC: Issue preclusion, at least with respect 

to liability. But there'll be no --

THE COURT: Correct. 

MR. LEBLANC: -- determination by that jury, as to the 

damages for any of the other --

THE COURT: No, I --

MR. LEBLANC: -- thousands of claimants.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 69

of 341
70

PG&E Corp., 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: No, I understand.

MR. LEBLANC: And so my point is simply this: that 

even in the best of worlds, if that trial concludes itself in 

February -- and again, in the best of worlds for them, they 

prevail in that trial --

THE COURT: Um-hum. 

MR. LEBLANC: -- you then have to start an estimation 

process with respect to the thousands of other claimants in 

this case, which means that you are starting an estimation 

process, at the earliest, in sort of the March --

THE COURT: No --

MR. LEBLANC: -- time frame. 

THE COURT: I understand. 

MR. LEBLANC: And the point there, Your Honor, is 

simply that we don't have the luxury of that time, not only 

because of AB 1054. Even if that wasn't there, none of us want 

this case to linger past another fire season -- or into another 

fire season, to create the risk and uncertainty of 

distributions to everybody. And nobody thinks that this 

case -- and us included, and the TCC, I'm certain, included, 

thinks that distribution should not be made before the end of 

next year or sometime thereafter, to all of the individuals who 

are owed money, both the victims and the unsecured creditors at 

large. And that's what that process would necessarily set up. 

And so in our mind, Your Honor, the -- and everybody 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 70

of 341
71

PG&E Corp., 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

cited to the fact that estimation is mandatory if you make the 

conclusion that liquidation would unduly delay. And that's the 

choice that --

THE COURT: I don't think anyone --

MR. LEBLANC: -- you have, and --

THE COURT: -- has really argued that piece of it; 

have they? I don't --

MR. LEBLANC: I'm sorry, Your Honor? 

THE COURT: I don't believe any of the papers made 

that argument.

MR. LEBLANC: No, I think everyone -- every one that I 

read said that, under 502(c) --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. LEBLANC: -- it's manda -- "shall" --

THE COURT: Right, right. 

MR. LEBLANC: -- "shall estimate". 

THE COURT: No, I'm agreeing. 

MR. LEBLANC: Right.

THE COURT: I'm just --

MR. LEBLANC: Okay -- yeah. 

THE COURT: I'm just restating it. I read --

MR. LEBLANC: Oh.

THE COURT: -- a lot of briefs. And certainly if 

there's a lawyer in this courtroom that believes that the 

record reflects that there can't be an estimation because the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 71

of 341
72

PG&E Corp., 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

predicate isn't there --

MR. LEBLANC: Right. Well --

THE COURT: -- I'll listen to them. 

MR. LEBLANC: And that's my point, Your Honor. Even 

with respect to Tubbs, when you walk through the best-of-worlds 

scenario for them with respect to the lift-stay motion in 

Tubbs, it proves the point that, in the circumstances of this 

case, both with the deadline but, more importantly, with the 

need to resolve this case and to get the money out -- that that 

would unduly delay these cases, under these circumstances. And 

we can't afford that.

And so when Your Honor -- Your Honor, in our view, has 

to consider, as it relates to the estimation of liability, the 

two proposals: either have that resolved at the state-court 

level for a handful of people, in a way that may or may not be 

preclusive, or do it through a collective action. The entire 

purpose of a bankruptcy process is to have this collective 

action. There's really no choice as between the two. 

And so --

THE COURT: And -- yeah; no, I understand. So from 

the committee's point of view, you agree with Mr. Orsini that I 

ought to tee up the inverse-condemnation issue earlier? 

MR. LEBLANC: We -- Your Honor, we --

THE COURT: You think it can be done before the claims 

deadline? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 72

of 341
73

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. LEBLANC: Right. We didn't take issue with that 

portion of their proposal. I think you could do it in a number 

of different ways. We've heard Your Honor. We may have taken 

issue with that when it was proposed, but we've also heard Your 

Honor say several times that -- and I don't want to -- again, 

not to make light of it, and I think Your Honor even said it 

today, that's a boxed issue. You can put your arms around that 

issue. It's a pure issue of law. It's not a -- it's not a --

it's not a --

THE COURT: Yeah, I didn't say it's a hard -- that 

it's an easy issue. Some on the other --

MR. LEBLANC: I agree. 

THE COURT: -- side think it's a no-brainer. I don't 

know that. But my question is, do you think I could do it 

before the claims bar date? 

MR. LEBLANC: I -- we do think you can do it before 

the claims bar date, Your Honor. The people who -- the issue 

of the claims bar date is just one of individual claimants 

being given the opportunity to file. We think that's a dueprocess question only. And there's no question that people are 

on notice of the existence of this case. 

THE COURT: Well, but there may be some people that 

aren't on notice because they are just now learning about the 

claims bar date. And so I guess my question -- sure, we have 

well-represented -- two committees: one official committee and 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 73

of 341
74

PG&E Corp., 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

one ad hoc committee, of -- two together represent a vast 

number of victims of this fire. And they know. But if there's 

a victim out there somewhere who shows up on October 20th, I 

guess I have to make sure that, if I've made a ruling, 

particularly if it's adverse to the side of the victims and 

favorable to PG&E -- I mean, I'm not worried about PG&E not 

having notice; I'm worried about is it proper to rule in favor 

of PG&E if they persuade me, when even one claimant didn't even 

know about it? 

MR. LEBLANC: Right. We believe --

THE COURT: That --

MR. LEBLANC: We believe it is -- as a matter of due 

process, we think there is adequate notice. There is a cadre 

of certainly Northern California's, California's, and probably 

the nation's, best plaintiff's lawyers who are aligned on that 

side, are even sitting in this courtroom. They're all aware of 

it. There will be --

THE COURT: No, I know they are. 

MR. LEBLANC: -- adequate representation. But, Your 

Honor, we've also suggested in our papers -- because, Your 

Honor, we had understood Your Honor to ask that question more 

directly about the Tubbs consideration, because that's a fact 

issue as opposed to the --

THE COURT: Oh, yeah. Well, the Tubbs is much diff --

MR. LEBLANC: -- inverse condemnation, which is a pure 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 74

of 341
75

PG&E Corp., 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

issue of law. 

THE COURT: Right.

MR. LEBLANC: But with respect to either of them, if 

Your Honor made the decision to delay those decisions until 

the -- and I think, from the Tubbs perspective, what the 

debtors have proposed is an early October trial. If that were 

delayed by a few weeks, as long as we can have -- and I think 

even the subrogation -- and I know this to be true; even the 

subrogation claimants are looking for an estimation of the 

totality of it, in the January -- in the December-to-January 

time frame. 

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. LEBLANC: So even if Your Honor gave some 

flexibility to that schedule, to allow the bar date to pass, to

avoid any concern about that one claimant out there who isn't 

represented by one of the lawyers who's involved in the case 

today, that would be fine. 

THE COURT: Look, I --

MR. LEBLANC: We don't think you have to do that, 

though.

THE COURT: Look, I -- my problem here is I can't 

solve the problem by pretending that some victim is going to 

surface on October 21st, and tell him, "By the way, on October 

24th we're having a hearing on inverse condemnation." That's 

not due process. I mean, if I'm denying it, I'm denying it 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 75

of 341
76

PG&E Corp., 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

either way. The question is -- and it seems to me that the 

fact that the official and ad hoc committees are very much in 

play in the discussion, and all of their aligned fellow 

colleagues are too -- I don't worry about that. I -- it's just 

a question of how to make it all schedule -- and --

MR. LEBLANC: Yeah. 

THE COURT: And the bigger question on the estimation 

is this thing that I just talked to Mr. Orsini about: who's 

going to do the estimating? 

MR. LEBLANC: No, no, I understand --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LEBLANC: -- Your Honor. And that -- I think, 

we've obviously offered our view on that in our papers, and I 

do think that what the debtors have proposed with the -- a 

period of time before there's a scheduling conference or status 

conference, during which the parties can meet and confer.

And I think what's important, Your Honor, is if you 

render a decision today that says we are going to have an 

estimation process of all of these things, we're going to do it 

in the way the debtors have suggested or tweak it a little bit, 

either we're going to consider inverse condemnation as part of 

phase 2 or do something different than that, and Your Honor 

reaches the conclusion that you're not going to lift the stay 

with respect to those other proceedings, then the parties --

recognizing that that process is going to happen, the parties 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 76

of 341
77

PG&E Corp., 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

will come together to try to figure out how to make that 

process work.

Failing that, of course, Your Honor can enter rulings, 

but I think if everybody knows that's the process we're going 

to use and we're not going to use an alternative process of a 

lift-stay, the parties will come together and figure out --

THE COURT: Okay --

MR. LEBLANC: -- how to make that work.

THE COURT: -- that's fine. And I'm not going to 

waste anyone's time today to get down into the nitty gritty 

of --

MR. LEBLANC: Right.

THE COURT: -- what's going to happen on October 7 

versus October something else in this thing. That's too much 

of a --

MR. LEBLANC: I think everybody --

THE COURT: -- granular, at the moment.

MR. LEBLANC: -- will tell you -- even those that 

oppose the motion will tell you that if you rule in that way, 

the parties will come together and figure out --

THE COURT: The bigger question is --

MR. LEBLANC: -- how that's going to work.

THE COURT: -- the obvious one of whether I can do it 

and, if not, who should do it and so on. Okay.

MR. LEBLANC: Correct.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 77

of 341
78

PG&E Corp., 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: All right.

MR. LEBLANC: And I've used more of my time, Your 

Honor --

THE COURT: Well, I know, but I'm --

MR. LEBLANC: -- so thank you.

THE COURT: -- I'm the one that's using it up for you. 

Thanks very much.

MR. LEBLANC: I appreciate your time --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LEBLANC: -- Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Bennett, are you going to speak?

MR. BENNETT: Rather than to repeat what others said, 

I'll save my time for rebuttal.

THE COURT: Rebuttal? But --

MR. BENNETT: After the -- after the opposition. The 

reply.

THE COURT: You mean, well, you -- well, you're 

sharing with Mr. Orsini on the rebuttal?

MR. BENNETT: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

And, well, is there -- was there another third party 

that wanted to be heard on -- in the motion?

Yeah, okay.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Your Honor, the ad hoc 

bond group.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 78

of 341
79

PG&E Corp., 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: Right.

MS. CRAWFORD: Good morning, Your Honor. Ashley 

Crawford, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld on behalf of the ad 

hoc --

THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. Crawford.

MS. CRAWFORD: -- committee of senior unsecured 

noteholders.

Look, Your Honor, I think the last question that you 

just discussed -- and I hope Mr. Leblanc is correct that if 

Your Honor were to rule in favor of estimation that the parties 

could come together and figure out some of these critical 

issues that we've been talking about today, but I think we put 

something together in our papers that I think actually is 

really the only path to potentially avoid a number of these 

legal issues that will ultimately get to the goal that you 

started the hearing with yesterday, which is to find a way to 

make the bankruptcy process work, to get the wildfire victims 

the recovery that they deserve, properly and promptly.

All parties agree that the estimation is going to have 

to happen, here, and I think all parties have agreed that this 

Court could conduct those estimation proceedings jointly with 

the district court. And we think that that is the path that 

has a number of benefits to this Court. Number one --

THE COURT: Do you mean in phases or the two-judge 

approach? What do you mean, you know --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 79

of 341
80

PG&E Corp., 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

MS. CRAWFORD: I think that you could do all of the 

phases with the two-judge approach. I don't think it it's 

necessarily required.

THE COURT: Do you know who my seatmate is going to 

be?

MS. CRAWFORD: I don't. I think it would be done by 

the district-court assignment procedures, Your Honor. But I --

this has been done before. They did this in the H. Robbins 

(ph.) case.

THE COURT: Well, I know of that, but it was a little 

different then. I know.

MS. CRAWFORD: I think that's right, Your Honor, 

but --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. CRAWFORD: -- I think that there are a lot of 

issues that we've talked about. There will be, potentially, 

long litigation and even appeals over whether or not certain 

types of emotional distress claims are considered personalinjury --

THE COURT: But what I said --

MS. CRAWFORD: -- tort claims here.

THE COURT: -- to you before is if there's going to be 

appeals, then there are all sorts of consequences or not. I 

mean, because if there's an appeal, then there's the question 

of stay pending appeal, and if there's a stay pending appeal, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 80

of 341
81

PG&E Corp., 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

then we might as well -- you know. Well, here's a -- here's a 

pure question for you.

MS. CRAWFORD: Um-hum.

THE COURT: Suppose a district judge and a bankruptcy 

judge are sitting together and make a decision and the district 

judge makes the decision, where does the appeal go?

MS. CRAWFORD: Well, I think, it -- Your Honor, it 

would go the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, correct?

THE COURT: No, come on.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

THE COURT: Here is -- here is your assigned 

bankruptcy judge. Next to me is my assigned district judge. I 

won't give this judge a name, I'll just identify. And this 

judge announces: you know, Orsini is right. The inversecondemnation rule is toast.

Now, I suspect that a few people won't like that 

ruling. Where do they appeal it? I don't -- listen, I don't 

know the answer. I assume they appeal to the Ninth Circuit. I 

don't know what -- I assume, for example, in a more typical 

case, if a district judge withdraws the reference for any 

number of reasons --

MS. CRAWFORD: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- the appeal is to the court of appeals. 

There is --

MS. CRAWFORD: Right.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 81

of 341
82

PG&E Corp., 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: -- no procedure that I know of that an 

Article III judge's decision is appealed to his chamber-mate 

down the hall. I don't think that happens.

MS. CRAWFORD: Correct.

THE COURT: And clearly, if the bankruptcy judge makes 

a decision, the appellant has an option. Obviously, it would 

presumably go to the district judge in that fact. And I don't 

know the answer. But to me, the point is that whether I'm 

doing it or the district judge is doing it, if there's an 

appeal and a stay pending appeal, then we can, I presume, not 

assume, that anybody can make the deadlines for, maybe, 1040 --

1504 -- 1504. Whatever the number is. 1054. I could be wrong 

about that, but it's -- to me, it's one of the imponderables 

about can this all work on the kind of time schedule that we're 

on?

Which is the same is true in the state court, as you 

read in the papers, that if there's an a -- if I grant relief 

from stay and a -- there's an appeal filed in the state court, 

what do -- what do we do with the process here?

Anyway, go back, Ms. Crawford, to what you were 

saying.

MS. CRAWFORD: Sure, and the -- my point, Your Honor, 

is that I think that we avoid all -- a number of the legal 

issues that could lead to an appeal, whether Your Honor makes 

the decisions here with respect to, for example, whether or not 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 82

of 341
83

PG&E Corp., 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

emotional distress claims are personal-injury torts or not. 

Because it -- and if you're bifurcating the proceedings where 

you conduct some portion of the estimation proceedings and the 

district court conducts some portion of the estimation 

proceedings, I do think, Your Honor, that the point is that you 

do potentially avoid some of those appellate risks because you 

don't have to make those decisions if you sit jointly together 

to conduct the --

THE COURT: Yeah, I don't --

MS. CRAWFORD: -- estimation proceedings.

THE COURT: I mean, I wish I could share your 

optimism, but I don't because parties have the right to appeal 

and we can't make them give that up unless they -- unless they 

give it up as a matter of choice because they want to move 

forward, but I -- it's not for me. Trial judges don't get 

involved in telling people the ramifications of their decision 

on appeal.

MS. CRAWFORD: No, Your Honor, and that's not my 

point, that people would have to give up -- give up their 

appellate right. My point is that I think the debtors have 

cited cases, we have cited cases, the TCC has acknowledged that 

a joint proceeding is permissible in this --

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

MS. CRAWFORD: -- circumstance.

THE COURT: I agree.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 83

of 341
84

PG&E Corp., 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

MS. CRAWFORD: That's simply my point, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CRAWFORD: -- and that you don't have to get to 

some of these other issues. You avoid the duplication of 

having part of the proceedings conducted in this court, where, 

potentially, Your Honor hears much of the estimation 

proceedings and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law 

to the district court.

THE COURT: Yeah, I know, and that's cumbersome, too. 

But at --

MS. CRAWFORD: Right, and you --

THE COURT: But at least there's no -- there's no 

doubt about the appellate track that it -- but it doesn't -- it 

doesn't lend itself to a quick disposition. Right? In other 

words, imagine an issue that doesn't implicate the -- well, no, 

that does -- that does implicate the non-core. Sure, if we 

take a traditional non-core matter, if I handle -- do that and 

make a decision -- make a recommendation, which is what Judge 

Parris said could happen --

MS. CRAWFORD: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- what some of the papers here say. It's 

an alternative, it's just that it may be cumbersome. And I 

think you're arguing that the two-judge process is probably 

more efficient than the two-step, proposed findings and 

referral -- I mean decision by the district judge.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 84

of 341
85

PG&E Corp., 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

MS. CRAWFORD: Yeah, exactly, Your Honor. I --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. CRAWFORD: -- think it's more efficient --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CRAWFORD: -- and it's -- it would be more 

efficient than bifurcating --

THE COURT: But more --

MS. CRAWFORD: -- as well.

THE COURT: -- even more efficient is to have a 

district judge take the whole thing.

MS. CRAWFORD: I suppose, Your Honor, but I --

THE COURT: I'm not -- I mean, I'm not being cavalier 

about this. I mean, I -- it takes away this issue of multiple 

steps for the one inquiry. And --

MS. CRAWFORD: It does, Your Honor, but I -- you said 

from the beginning of this case that the most -- the core issue 

in this case is resolving these wildfire claims.

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MS. CRAWFORD: And you ultimately will have to do a 

number of things to make sure that these cases get through the 

reorganization process. And to take that process completely 

away from you, I think, upsets that balance. And there's --

THE COURT: It may.

MS. CRAWFORD: -- a way to do it --

THE COURT: And you and I may think that I can solve 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 85

of 341
86

PG&E Corp., 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

all these problems, I just don't have the choice of making the 

decision that I can make the decision. In other words, it's 

not my call. But I appreciate your point on it.

MS. CRAWFORD: Yes, Your Honor. And you know, I 

think, look, we will obviously work with the parties, depending 

on the outcome of the hearing today if your decision is for 

estimation, and propose this as an option because we do think 

it's something that should be considered.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you --

MS. CRAWFORD: Thank you.

THE COURT: -- very much, Ms. Crawford.

All right, are we ready for --

Mr. Julian, you're sitting in the first chair. Are 

you going to make the argument today? Or -- I think we're 

ready to go to your side.

MR. JULIAN: Yes, Your Honor. Well, let's see. With 

their forty-five minutes, we've gone an hour and twenty. And 

what I'd like to -- we've heard their arguments. What I'd like 

to do, since I have six requests from six different groups to 

divide up our hour --

THE COURT: Yeah, and I'll be -- I, obviously, will be 

flexible with the time. I'm the cause of taking a lot of time, 

and we --

MR. JULIAN: No problem.

THE COURT: -- we're going to take as much time as we 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 86

of 341
87

PG&E Corp., 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

need on these cases. So --

MR. JULIAN: Your Honor, may we have a five-minute 

break, then, so I can organize that group?

THE COURT: Well, let's make it ten so that people can 

just, at least, have personal convenience. Why don't -- well, 

by that clock, we'll make it about, well, five after --

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- 11. Okay. Thank you.

(Recess from 10:51 a.m., until 11:08 a.m.)

THE CLERK: Court is back in session.

THE COURT: My staff told me that some people are 

having trouble hearing me. I'll try to get closer to the 

microphone. And don't be bashful if you're in the courtroom 

and you're not hearing me; you can wave and I'll do my best.

All right. Mr. Julian, what's your pleasure? And the 

time is not rigid. Obviously, I'm going to give you as much 

time as the other side had appropriate.

MR. JULIAN: Your Honor, what I'd like to do is make 

up -- we have six other parties who are going to talk, most of 

their time is limited. Subrogated claimants will have about 

fifteen minutes. We have public entities, San Francisco. I 

think we can all accommodate them. Mr. Singleton wants five 

minutes. We can all accommodate them.

My proposal is if we run over a little bit of what 

Your Honor had in mind, that we can always take some time out 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 87

of 341
88

PG&E Corp., 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

of the Tubbs relief from stay because there's a great overlap 

in what we're going to do today.

THE COURT: There is. I agree.

MR. JULIAN: But what I would like to -- and for the 

record, Robert Julian of Baker Hostetler appearing on behalf of 

the official committee of tort claimants.

What I'd like to do, Your Honor, if I may start and 

hand off a couple of the arguments to some of the lawyers who'd 

like to speak because they have some important information to 

convey to you.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. JULIAN: For my part today, I have a lot of time 

that I would like to spend with you on the questions that you 

asked Mr. Orsini with respect to estimation, scope of the 

hearing, jurisdiction, and how you can handle this monster.

You have the unenviable responsibility to do something 

that has not yet been done in mass tort bankruptcies, which is 

to -- or this Court, I should say, has the responsibility to 

estimate claims that have never been estimated in this type or 

nature.

Let's face it, in the asbestos cases, the estimation 

was done on the basis of very discreet and well-settled 

settlement history for the three types of asbestos injuries: 

mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis. Actually, there 

were two types of asbestosis: serious and non-serious, which 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 88

of 341
89

PG&E Corp., 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

resulted in a nominal payment. But still, there was a 

well-determined settlement history that helped the parties 

estimate.

And in the estimation of those claims, Congress made 

sure the plans provided for recapitalization and of the 

overwhelming support of the victims.

In the product liability cases, the cases have been 

some for two compared to this; one issue in Dow Corning.

THE COURT: One issue, yeah.

MR. JULIAN: One causation issue.

THE COURT: One causation. And like the same with 

your Dalkon Shield, right?

MR. JULIAN: Dalkon Shield.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. JULIAN: As we identified in Exhibit B to our 

estimation brief, each of these fires has twenty different 

factual issues with respect to negligence: prudent care of the 

equipment, prudent policies dealing with the energization, 

prudent hiring of inspectors and managers. And there are 

seventeen to twenty-one fires I count -- debtor says 

twenty-one. We sometimes lump it as seventeen because the Nuns 

fire, which came within two blocks of my house, includes the 

Norrbom fire, Kenwood, and others. Five fires there.

So when you look at it compared to Dow Corning, you 

have 400 of those issues when you multiple the 20 times the 20. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 89

of 341
90

PG&E Corp., 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 I think we do ourselves a disservice in proceeding to talk 

about any of my issues today that I want to talk to you about 

without first understanding what exactly is involved in trying 

or estimating an inverse-condemnation liability claim, question 

one.

Question two, what exactly is involved in trying or 

estimating negligence, nuisance, and trespass claims, all which 

are different and have different damages as to the issues?

And so what I would like to do at this time, as part 

of my case, is to have two lawyers, the co-lead counsel from 

the North Bay fire cases come up and describe the issues that 

their client's representing to this Court and their proofs of 

claim on an inverse on the one hand and negligence, nuisance, 

and trespass and some other claims on the other hand.

Not for the purpose, Your Honor, of explaining to you 

that that issues have to be tried here, estimated here, like 

they would be in a stay court, solely for the purpose of 

identifying the factual and legal issues that would form the 

basis for what I'm going to say in a moment about estimation 

and the amount of time I need for discovery, were some claims 

to be estimated in this court or the district court.

So without further ado, Your Honor, I would like to 

ask --

THE COURT: Well, before you ask them --

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 90

of 341
91

PG&E Corp., 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: -- just one question. You heard my 

colloquy with Mr. Orsini about what I've learned -- and I'm 

sure you know well too -- from other cases on estimation. 

There's this range of things that in discretion you do. You 

can do anywhere from the kind of percentage protection to many 

trials to competing experts. Do you agree that the trier of 

fact, without deciding who that person is, does have the 

discretion to set the ground rules for the estimation process? 

DO you agree? Or I mean, is that something that's an issue in 

and of itself? And I --

MR. JULIAN: It's --

THE COURT: And then I --

MR. JULIAN: It depends. And if I --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JULIAN: If I may answer it this way, first we 

have to decide -- ask the question, what is the purpose of 

estimation? The Bittner case that you discussed with Mr. 

Orsini, makes my case. In Bittner, the issue was whether or 

not the claimant's claims would be estimated at zero, a 

hundred, or somewhere in between --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. JULIAN: -- for the purposes of voting. And the 

circuit court said, in Bittner, that the battle was whether or 

not the amount of the claim would permit the shareholders to 

control the voting in the case. And then said, basically --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 91

of 341
92

PG&E Corp., 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

I'm paraphrasing in my words -- if we get it wrong, no harm, no 

foul. Why? Because they can always get whatever they want in 

liquidation.

That's the difference between -- and now I'm answering 

one of my questions, but I'll do it now before I call Mr. Pitre 

up. Your Honor, you've been doing this for forty --

THE COURT: Don't remind me.

MR. JULIAN: -- forty-five years.

THE COURT: Longer than you have.

MR. JULIAN: That's true.

THE COURT: But not much longer. Come on, I know what 

you --

MR. JULIAN: Not much longer. I remember our 

bankruptcy bar lunches had nine people in them when we 

started -- when I started in '79.

THE COURT: Yeah, we only had eight when I started 

then we got you; you joined after that.

MR. JULIAN: Yes, I did.

But in terms of feasibility in a typical case where 

PG&E is going to get reorganized and live again and --

THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, liquidation's not a real --

MR. JULIAN: It's not.

THE COURT: -- real good alternative here, right?

MR. JULIAN: Yeah, all the contract claims and even 

the tort claims are getting paid in full. You made the point, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 92

of 341
93

PG&E Corp., 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 PG&E won, saying I'm going to send these cases down to 

state court because you're going to pay them in full. Who 

cares? Well, you didn't say "who cares", but that was the 

effect of it. And so --

THE COURT: But as you remember, as much as the 

victims in that case suffered their harms, it was very much a 

small piece of the --

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: -- reason why -- it wasn't the reason why 

the company was in bankruptcy, so.

MR. JULIAN: So it is error, in my view, to cite 

Bittner as controlling authority for estimation of how much 

money is going to be paid to these victims because Bittner 

specifically said, if it's for liquidation, no harm, no foul. 

You know why? Because the claim is going to ride through the 

bankruptcy case, the Bittner claim.

THE COURT: Now, Mr. Julian, in preparing for 

today, --- before Mr. Orsini was even here, I mean, in the 

courtroom -- in reading the briefs and thinking about it, 

Bittner's just one of those seminal cases because it was one of 

the first. I didn't go back and re-read it and I didn't recall 

one way or the other. I think the statute got changed. And 

the statute now says -- I believe it's pre-Amendment 157, 

wasn't it? I'm pretty sure it was, but I could be wrong. But 

157 says what the estimation is for.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 93

of 341
94

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And so if Bittner -- I don't -- let me try 

it this way. I don't read the statute to say the estimation is 

just for the purpose of voting. It's for something else for 

confirmation, so. And I don't -- listen, I'm not trying to 

discourage you from asking your co-counsel to come up here --

and I want to hear from them -- but this is not the first 

hearing in the first day of a trial where they will talk about 

all they're going to prove at trial. The question -- and you 

can help them -- is what are they going to prove at the 

estimation hearing? And for today's purposes, we don't even 

know who's going to preside over that hearing, how long it's 

going to take, what are the ground rules, but it's the 

estimation hearing, not the trial, right? And we agree on 

that?

MR. JULIAN: We agree on that --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JULIAN: -- and I stressed that to them.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JULIAN: And I can't answer any of those questions 

without an appreciation of what really is involved in inverse; 

and I have a big discussion on inverse --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JULIAN: -- about what you can and cannot do. And 

I need Mr. Pitre to come up --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 94

of 341
95

PG&E Corp., 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: No, I -- they're welcome to be here.

MR. JULIAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JULIAN: So Frank Pitre of the Cotchett firm, Your 

Honor, will --

THE COURT: Mr. Pitre's been --

MR. JULIAN: -- speak on behalf of the North Bay Fire 

litigants.

THE COURT: Mr. Pitre's been here before. Good 

morning, Mr. Pitre. Nice to see you.

MR. PITRE: Good morning, Your Honor. It's a 

pleasure. I will apologize, I am not a bankruptcy lawyer.

THE COURT: You don't have to apologize.

MR. PITRE: I am a trial lawyer who does handle 

personal-injury cases and practices in front of this 

district --

THE COURT: I know who you are.

MR. PITRE: -- handling other types of cases.

THE COURT: And I don't know you personally, but I 

know your reputation, so.

MR. PITRE: Well, thank you.

The question I had, Your Honor, is the question that 

you started out with, with Mr. Orsini, which I think deserves 

to be answered a little more clearly.

And that question was, assuming, Mr. Orsini, that this 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 95

of 341
96

PG&E Corp., 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 rules that inverse condemnation is a viable claim under 

California law -- assuming this Court says that inverse 

condemnation applies to an investor-owned utility -- after 

we've decided that, what do we try next on morning of day two? 

And this is what I did not hear: I want to know whether PG&E 

will admit to liability on a factual basis; they admit that 

they are liable under inverse condemnation for causing fires. 

Take away the legal issue; the legal issue is a constitutional 

issue. It should not apply to an investor-owned utility; Court 

rules, says it applies.

Now, we're on day two, what is the disputed factual 

issue that is left and set aside damages?

THE COURT: Mr. Pitre, I didn't -- I violated my own 

rule. I had a list of questions for Mr. Orsini, and I didn't 

ask him the very question that you're asking. And so I will 

ask him, and you can ask him.

But I tell you what I think the answer should be, not 

what it will be. The answer should be, day two is where you're 

up to put on your damage claim. That the plaintiff -- or the 

defendant, in an estimation trial, the debtor -- again, I don't 

think estimation trials have plaintiffs and defendants, so I 

have to get you out of that mindset. I think the debtor says 

I -- my equipment caused the fire and California law says I'm 

strictly liable, so now it's up for the plaintiff or the 

creditors or the TCC to tell me what their damages are.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 96

of 341
97

PG&E Corp., 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

Now, Mr. Orsini, can differ with that, if he does, but 

that's what I would think has to be the answer.

MR. PITRE: I would love to get that answer 

directly --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PITRE: -- from PG&E on -- if I heard what the 

Court said -- that the second thing that happens on morning, 

day two, we call our witnesses on damages. Thank you.

THE COURT: But --

MR. PITRE: I would ask Mr. Orsini --

THE COURT: But wait. But wait. Let me --

MR. PITRE: -- to answer. Yep.

THE COURT: Let me clear on something to you --

MR. PITRE: Yes.

THE COURT: -- because I don't have your experience 

with personal injury. I took Prosser on Torts when I was in 

law school before Mr. Julian was even thinking about going to 

law school, and I was actually going to ask you when you were 

in law school.

But my recollection is that a plaintiff has to prove 

damages, and the most liable defendant in the world doesn't 

have any liability if the plaintiff doesn't have any damages, 

leaving aside other things. So that means if we were at a 

traditional trial and you were putting on your case, you would 

put on your client's damages; my client lost his home, my 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 97

of 341
98

PG&E Corp., 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

client lost his house, my client lost his spouse. And you 

would prove that, and that would be the inquiry.

And the defendant has already admitted to liability 

and has already been presented with an adverse ruling on the 

legal question. I would think that the debtor, also known as 

defendant, could cross-examine your witness and could challenge 

all the calculations of your client's damages. But I don't 

think there's anything left to try. It's certainly in an 

estimation trial based upon what he said about his client's 

role of the -- the way they come out on the analysis.

MR. PITRE: I agree with you.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PITRE: I agree with you.

THE COURT: We'll ask him.

MR. PITRE: But let's ask -- let's get the answer to 

that question because I think that will help expedite where we 

we're going.

THE COURT: Mr. Orsini, do you want to change the 

procedures here and just answer that question? Am I wrong or 

right on that one?

MR. ORSINI: Respectfully, I think you're wrong on 

that one, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So what --

MR. ORSINI: So --

THE COURT: What are you putting on --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 98

of 341
99

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: Couple things --

THE COURT: -- on day two of the trial?

MR. ORSINI: So if Your Honor determines that inverse 

condemnation can apply to an investor on utility -- okay?

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. ORSINI: There are still questions as to whether 

or not we are even liable under inverse condemnation.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: Some of those --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: Some of those are fire-specific and 

involve a question as to whether or not the specific spot where 

the fire started is a spot that was on lines built for the 

public good or for a private good.

THE COURT: Okay. So we can stop right there. So you 

have some case in chief to put on in your --

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So without getting into the 

plaintiff/defendant, if you're the debtor, you're opening 

argument -- if I'm the presiding judge and I decide we're going 

to do it that way, you have to go first, whether you only have 

two hours or two weeks, you have to put on more evidence than 

what I thought was --

MR. ORSINI: I think that's right, Your Honor, both 

with respect to inverse condemnation, and we're still going to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 99

of 341
100

PG&E Corp., 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

have to deal with the negligence issues because there are 

different damages --

THE COURT: But --

MR. ORSINI: -- that come with negligence.

THE COURT: No, but it -- doesn't damages -- isn't 

that what they have to prove, their damages?

MR. ORSINI: Well, they have to prove their amount of 

damages, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah. Right.

MR. ORSINI: But before they can prove their amount, 

they have to prove entitlement. And there are categories --

THE COURT: But what --

MR. ORSINI: -- of damages --

THE COURT: But what do you have to prove? That's 

what I want to get. So what I'm doing is bankruptcy magic 

and --

MR. ORSINI: Well, I --

THE COURT: -- and turning the sequence around --

MR. ORSINI: Right.

THE COURT: -- and putting you up first. So you were 

up first, it's day one, and I've ruled that the inversecondemnation doctrine is alive and well, and I note that the 

record is that you've conceded that your client's equipment 

caused the fire -- the particular fire that we're talking 

about. What's your next proof? That's really what I'm --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 100

of 341
101

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: Our next proof at that point -- and I'm 

not going to get into whose --

THE COURT: No.

MR. ORSINI: -- burden of proof is it --

THE COURT: No.

MR. ORSINI: -- but whose -- what our next proof would 

be -- what evidence would I then introduce?

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. ORSINI: If it's one of --

THE COURT: Just general.

MR. ORSINI: If it's --

THE COURT: General category.

MR. ORSINI: If it's one of the fires for which we 

have this argument that the particular line doesn't qualify for 

inverse, I'll give you evidence on that. I'd also give you 

evidence that even if this tree hit that line at that 

particular point, we were not negligent --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- in failing to remove that tree.

THE COURT: Okay. Then you're going to -- then if 

we -- okay.

So, Mr. Pitre, I'm going to let Mr. Orsini down. I 

thought it was simpler; it's not.

MR. PITRE: It is not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Without asking him to go for a long time 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 101

of 341
102

PG&E Corp., 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

that he believes he's got more things he can establish and --

MR. PITRE: Well, that's pretty important, Your Honor, 

because if somebody comes into this courtroom and says to this 

Court that they can do this through an estimation process, I 

think one of the issues that we need to grapple with is, what 

are the disputed issues that are going to be part of that 

estimation process on liability?

THE COURT: But this is what we get back to my 

discussion with Mr. Julian. Congress didn't give us a lot of 

guidance and it didn't -- it clearly didn't say that it's the 

same thing you'd have if you were in a multi-week jury trial in 

state court; it's not the same. It's an estimation. And 

the -- as I read the cases, the trier of fact has enormous 

discretion. And they might say, Orsini gets one witness to 

talk about maintenance of the lines; and you get one witness to 

rebut that. All we're doing is estimating. Anyway --

MR. PITRE: Judge --

THE COURT: -- go ahead now with your -- I don't want 

to --

MR. PITRE: -- but here's the problem --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PITRE: -- what I just heard is there was not an 

identification of any fire, any fire, for which PG&E would 

admit liability in inverse condemnation. That means, Your 

Honor, that there are twenty-two separate fires for which there 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 102

of 341
103

PG&E Corp., 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

will have to be a triable issue before this Court or some other 

venue on whether or not a public improvement, an electrical 

line, the conductors, a power pole, a transformer, a hook on a 

transmission tower was the cause, a substantial factor in 

causing real property and personal property damage. Twenty-two 

separate fires.

Your Honor, if there's one thing I know about the 

rules of evidence, I cannot get an expert to get up on the 

stand and say that I can tell you that there is causation in 

twenty-two fires without having what I call "admissible 

evidence": observations from the people who were on the ground 

who looked and saw the physical evidence, observations with 

people who may have seen bits and pieces of where arching took 

place so they can pinpoint the point of the fire, all those 

people who assembled photographs and took them and can 

authenticate them --

THE COURT: Well, let me stop you. What you're 

telling me is, if there were no bankruptcy and this was your --

you were prosecuting for your plaintiff/client against Mr. 

Orsini, your case in chief would have all that kind of stuff in 

it to make your case, right?

MR. PITRE: What PG&E is disputing --

THE COURT: No, I --

MR. PITRE: -- all of that.

THE COURT: -- I understand. I'm just --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 103

of 341
104

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. PITRE: So --

THE COURT: I'm agreeing with you --

MR. PITRE: Sure.

THE COURT: -- that's what you get, and I don't 

know -- all I know is what I said before. I think Congress 

told us we have to make this estimation because when -- you're 

making the case for what the statute said -- when there would 

be a delay if we actually do the determination. Estimation 

will be an undue delay.

So if it's a delay for one individual who suffered med 

malpractice in a case against a surgeon who's in bankruptcy, 

then it is all the more an undue delay for tens of thousands of 

people that have suffered the kind of tragedies that they've 

suffered here.

All the -- that's -- unfortunately, that's all the 

more reason why the estimation has to be a compressed best 

judgment. And Judge Perris in the case, and I believe the 

judge in Corning -- yeah, Corning -- said the same thing, the 

judge trial court has to err on the upside to protect the 

victims. But that's about all I know is what the guidance is.

MR. PITRE: Judge, the victims aren't being protected 

if PG&E has access to all the evidence, and PG&E has collected 

that, and the tort victims --

THE COURT: Oh, I know.

MR. PITRE: -- haven't had any evidence.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 104

of 341
105

PG&E Corp., 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: I -- Mr. Pitre, I --

MR. PITRE: So let's just go back --

THE COURT: I don't disagree.

MR. PITRE: I don't think expediency under the federal 

rules in trying to get something done sacrifices due-process 

rights of individuals to collect evidence --

THE COURT: I don't disagree with you.

MR. PITRE: -- to prove their case.

THE COURT: The question --

MR. PITRE: And --

THE COURT: The question is, what is enough evidence 

to prepare for an estimation trial? And again, I wish I had a 

magic formula to tell you I know. I don't know the answer.

MR. PITRE: And that's why, Your Honor, I think it's 

premature to say we're going to have an estimation trial when 

we don't know, and haven't had defined for us, the issues that 

will be tried as to each individual fire.

So we could have an intelligent discussion to be able 

to talk about what is necessary to allow people to have due 

process to collect the evidence that is necessary to put on a 

truncated trial, no matter where we go. But right now, there's 

no plan from PG&E that accounts for the fact that they intend 

to dispute liability in inverse condemnation factually.

THE COURT: Am I correct -- educate me on state law 

procedure, or even in a federal court, civil -- there's no 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 105

of 341
106

PG&E Corp., 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

counterpart to this animal called estimation, is there, in 

state or federal practice?

MR. PITRE: Not that I'm aware of, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I mean, maybe -- how about in class action 

litigation? Well, maybe -- it may be it's the threat of it. 

But I mean, even in the most complicated class action that 

involves -- particularly that involves personal injury -- and I

don't want to judge Brier and --

MR. PITRE: Sure.

THE COURT: -- the defective Volkswagens because they 

were just cars. But in a -- in some of the large cases that 

you or your colleagues have been involved, there's no 

counterpart. 502(c) exists all by itself in the bankruptcy 

world, right?

MR. PITRE: There's no counterpart --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PITRE: -- to 502(c), however, in each and every 

one of the instances this Court has just mentioned, admissible 

evidence needs to be provided to --

THE COURT: No, I know. I know.

MR. PITRE: -- whoever.

THE COURT: I know.

MR. PITRE: So the question, really, I think we're --

where, I think, we're perhaps missing one another is I 

understand that 502(c) is a truncated process. But I also 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 106

of 341
107

PG&E Corp., 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

understand that the rules of evidence apply, even though it's a 

truncated proceeding. And the issue is if we're going to adopt 

estimation as a process. We're dealing with estimation dealing 

with twenty-two separate fires --

THE COURT: Yes, I understand.

MR. PITRE: -- and all of the various factual evidence 

that deals with causation in each and every one if, I 

understand, that PG&E contests causation, substantial factor, 

for inverse alone. We haven't gotten to negligence.

THE COURT: Yeah, we haven't even got to the next one. 

No, I understand that. So then -- but if Mr. Orsini and his 

client threw in the towel on this issue and it was your job to 

put on the plaintiff's case, if you will, but you had to do it 

in this estimation construction, you don't have quite the need 

for the kind of discovery you're talking about.

MR. PITRE: Right.

THE COURT: You still have to -- you have to be 

prepared to prove up, again, in the aggregate, your client's 

type of damages too.

MR. PITRE: That is correct.

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay.

MR. PITRE: And we would focus only -- Your Honor, 

just so we can have it clear, when we talk about inverse, we're 

talking about economic damages, we're talking about damage to 

real property, damage to person property. You're talking about 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 107

of 341
108

PG&E Corp., 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

things like reforestation. There are -- they're all property. 

They have nothing to do with non-economic damages --

THE COURT: No, I know that.

MR. PITRE: -- which -- and just for the Court's 

information, when you look at the total damages that are being 

estimated, about fifty percent are economic, about fifty 

percent are non-economic.

The Tubbs case -- just to pick that case -- the 

damages for Tubbs, economic and non-economic, are about 

one-third of the overall value. So when we are talking about a 

process, even if we have just Tubbs, you still have two-thirds 

of the overall evaluation that needs to be done to be able to 

get valuation on a, what I call, global basis. It's 

information that has to be factored into because -- and Mr. 

Kelly is going to talk about negligence and the impact that has 

on any estimation proceeding -- what we're talking about is: 

how do we estimate the whole in the most efficient way 

possible?

Now, PG&E has put folks into a whipsaw. On the one 

hand, what they say is they want to start these trials right 

away; on the other hand, they haven't given us any of the 

discovery that's necessary to prove, even in a truncated 

proceeding, what needs to be proved to establish causation and 

liability.

So, Your Honor, I heard Mr. Orsini -- and I hate to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 108

of 341
109

PG&E Corp., 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

get involved in a situation where it's he said, she said -- but 

when Mr. Orsini says, we offered somebody 7.5 billion 

dollars -- just to put that in context and just to deal only 

with property damage -- what he's saying is, for the North Bay 

Fire cases, if he looked only at their cost to rebuild, they 

averaged -- according to his estimation numbers -- 250 to 300 

dollars a square foot, which you cannot do anything in the 

North Bay for less than 500 to 700 dollars a square foot. That 

has nothing to do with what's going on here.

What is going on here is very simple. It's called 

whip-sawing people by saying, I want a deadline to try cases, 

not providing them any discovery, and then saying we're going 

to have a truncated trial on twenty-two fires. That cannot be 

done. That is not expediency that benefits the victims because 

there're valuable rights to due process are being eradicated.

So I would just suggest that we proceed first with 

understanding what needs to be tried, what needs to be done, 

and then develop a plan in whatever venue that that shakes out 

to be, but certainly not one that is before this Court today.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Pitre --

MR. PITRE: I think Mr. Kelly needs to talk about --

THE COURT: -- I wasn't going to suggest all the 

details today. This is why we're having this discussion. But 

I appreciate your comments.

MR. PITRE: Thank you.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 109

of 341
110

PG&E Corp., 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, Mr. Julian, you said Mr. Kelly wishes 

to be heard?

MR. JULIAN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Kelly? Good morning.

MR. KELLY: Good morning, Your Honor. Michael Kelly, 

Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger. And I appreciate having 

the opportunity to speak to the Court.

THE COURT: Nice to have you.

MR. KELLY: I wanted -- and I'm a P.I. lawyer.

THE COURT: I know you are.

MR. KELLY: And I actually --

THE COURT: Yeah, same category as Mr. Pitre. I 

haven't seen you personally, but I know you by reputation.

MR. KELLY: And I will not make an opening statement; 

that isn't my purpose, wasn't why I came here. But what I did 

come here to do was to hopefully give the Court information 

that is helpful in making decisions about timing and about 

estimation and about fairness.

I sat here and I listened to people on the other side 

talk about getting this done quickly and expediently. But 

fundamentally, this should be about doing it fairly and justly, 

and I know this Court knows that.

And what we have here -- because I have been here 

since the day after the fire. I've been involved in the cases 

for two years. -- we have had a consistent pattern of PG&E 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 110

of 341
111

PG&E Corp., 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

appearing and saying, we really want to take care of people, 

and slow playing this case to a place now where they want to 

compress and jam the victims into a position where they are 

unable to prove their case.

Most telling about that is the estimation motion 

itself, Your Honor, which made no mention of negligence. 

Negligence has to be proved in this case, and I appreciate it 

doesn't get proved -- as you have told both myself, Mr. Petri, 

and the other people here -- as it would in a superior court.

But negligence is mandatory because to recover for 

personal injury, negligence must be proven; that deals with 

conduct, the conduct with the debtor.

THE COURT: And what about if it's proven that it's 

likely? I mean, isn't that, again, the point? Likely versus 

not likely, I mean? That's not very precise, but it's 

something.

MR. KELLY: Which is likely or not likely, Your Honor?

THE COURT: That they were negligent.

MR. KELLY: Yes, Your Honor, I understand. You're 

talking about whatever your burden of proof is for estimation. 

But my point is this, that we have the burden of proof of 

proving that they fail to exercise reasonable care in the 

operation, the management, the maintenance, the control of --

THE COURT: I think what I'm trying to tell you is the 

same thing I said before. I think we live in a different world 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 111

of 341
112

PG&E Corp., 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

under this 502 section, and it isn't the traditional rules. 

And so you said you weren't going to make an opening statement, 

and I understood what you were saying, but if we were at the 

first day of trial of negligence, you would be laying out all 

of the proof that you were going to put in, and it would be an 

enormous amount of stuff, but you would make a prima facie case 

of negligence. 

And then it would be up to the defendant to show why 

they weren't negligent, and six weeks later a jury or a court 

would file, but under an estimation proceeding there is this 

expedited process of convincing the trier of fact why you 

should estimate one -- I don't -- I didn't make up the rules.

MR. KELLY: No. And I'm not --

THE COURT: That's what we're stuck with.

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry to interrupt.

THE COURT: No. You go ahead.

MR. KELLY: I'm not suggesting the Court made up the 

rules. What I'm suggesting is that the deaths of the 130 

people, their heirs are entitled to bring forth a case, whether 

it is compressed or estimated, that includes every available 

cause of action, and for death and for injury and for doubling 

and tripling damage to forests and for doubling damage to 

agriculture, negligence is a critical piece of what must be 

proved.

And I need to tell you that we asked PG&E to tell us 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 112

of 341
113

PG&E Corp., 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

in each case, will you agree that you agree to causation and 

negligence for twenty-two fires? We will not. Will you agree 

that you were negligent in twenty-two of these fires? We will 

not.

THE COURT: I understand. I understand.

MR. KELLY: Will you agree that you will forego 

damages? We will not. So now, we are faced with a defendant 

who says we have to do a lot of chopping wood. We haven't even 

been giving any kindling, Your Honor. We don't have a Presto 

log, which I'm not even sure are still made.

THE COURT: They're probably --

MR. KELLY: That's what happens when you get out of 

law school.

THE COURT: -- politically incorrect to have them.

MR. KELLY: Yes. In 1976, we had them, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah, I know. We tried to light them too. 

I remember that, but --

MR. KELLY: But the point is there is nothing for us 

to chop. I'm sure the vision of us swinging our axes at air 

would be great for Mr. Karotkin or Mr. Orsini, but that's 

really where they're putting the victim. 

So this is my point, to tell us we're going to give 

you nothing for two years, now we want you to have a compressed 

estimation trial on every theory of action to entitle your 

clients to the recoverable damages they're entitled to for 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 113

of 341
114

PG&E Corp., 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

nuisance --

THE COURT: Well, again, I want to stop you, not 

because I don't care about what you're saying. I want to -- I 

need guidance from both sides as to how -- and just for the 

moment, pretend -- forget about district judges, and forget 

about superior court -- how I'm supposed to go about my duty of 

doing all the things you need to do, and at the same time, 

carry out the message from the statute to make this estimate. 

So and clearly, you need some evidence, and clearly, you 

need -- and you shouldn't be held up from it, but what I can't 

decide, because I don't know yet, what's enough evidence to 

make up your case. It's not what you --

MR. KELLY: So --

THE COURT: -- get to prepare your trial in superior 

court. And same with the defense, I mean, they have to 

carry -- they have to establish a probability of their defense. 

I don't know the answer.

MR. KELLY: No. And I wouldn't expect this Court to 

know the answer without asking the question, and I appreciate 

the question, but that --

THE COURT: And I can ensure you a district judge who 

knows less about bankruptcy than I do will have, I assume have 

the same question. He or she will have --

MR. KELLY: I think these are the right questions, 

Your Honor.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 114

of 341
115

PG&E Corp., 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: Yeah, they are. I agree. They are.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Well, I'm glad you agree since they were 

your questions. I'm in --

THE COURT: I can answer --

MR. KELLY: -- sometimes in a parallel universe. 

Currently, apparently, I'm a --

THE COURT: Are you old --

MR. KELLY: -- Habitrail wheel.

THE COURT: Are you old enough to remember Carnac and 

Johnny Carson because we --

MR. KELLY: Of course I am, Your Honor. If you hand 

me a card, I will put it on my forehead.

THE COURT: And we can give the answers.

MR. KELLY: We can give the answers.

THE COURT: Here's the answer. What's the question? 

All right. Let's get --

MR. KELLY: Your question must be in the form of an 

answer.

THE COURT: Let's get back to our assignment, Mr. 

Kelly.

MR. KELLY: Well, here's the question, which is what 

is the most intelligent way for the Court to be able to 

determine how much evidence is enough evidence. I think the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 115

of 341
116

PG&E Corp., 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

answer to that question requires to Court to know what are the 

individual theories, what are the individual defenses? This is 

the first time we've had Mr. Orsini actually say, well, 

actually, when we said we would admit causation, we weren't 

admitting anything. And admitting causation in inverse has 

nothing to do with admitting causation in negligence, which is 

a different thing, doesn't necessarily mean the equipment is 

involved. It has to do with people's conduct. 

So a rational way to do this, it seems to me -- and by 

the way, I believe two things can be equally true such as you 

can begin an estimation process for damages while we try subs 

liability and we determine these other questions. There's no 

reason we have to adopt the Orsini tri-phase, which, as I was 

listening to it, doesn't even begin to get the victims who he 

wants to have the money so soon until some cap trust is set up 

in two years. So --

THE COURT: What would --

MR. KELLY: Excuse me.

THE COURT: What would --

MR. KELLY: Only one year. I hear Mr. Karotkin saying 

it wasn't two.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know. I heard what -- it is 

what it is. But no, I understand. We're going to talk more 

specifically on the relief of stay, but I'm not -- they are --

how many times have we agreed? They're all part of the same 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 116

of 341
117

PG&E Corp., 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

inquiry.

MR. KELLY: So it seems to me the question is, what do 

you deny? What needs to be proved? What do you deny? How 

many witnesses do you think it takes? What proof and discovery 

has to be done? We could sit here, roll up our sleeves. We 

can hammer that out. Now, you know --

THE COURT: Right. I think that's true.

MR. KELLY: I don't think you can decide that off 

these briefs.

THE COURT: But, Mr. Kell -- well, that may be true. 

But if I were to deny a relief from stay, we still have to 

hammer it out. It still has to be hammered out. And you and 

your clients still are entitled to fair treatment and due 

process. We just have to define how it's all executed. That's 

all.

I mean, I don't think I have an option there. Of 

course, I have an option to grant relief from stay, but even 

your side has not said -- and we don't have an estimation 

process. I mean --

MR. KELLY: Absolutely.

THE COURT: Right. So --

MR. KELLY: And in fact, Your Honor --

THE COURT: So --

MR. KELLY: -- my question --

THE COURT: Yeah.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 117

of 341
118

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. KELLY: -- you could grant relief to trial 

liability and causation and we would get all this done 

simultaneously. It is possible. It's actually been done.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Since -- there are hundreds of thousands 

of lawyers working for the defense. We can get more than one 

thing done at a time.

THE COURT: I know. But it -- but Mr. Julian made the 

point is this kind of estimation hasn't been done before.

MR. KELLY: Well, it seems to me that if anybody could 

figure it out, it would be you, especially with the help of 

myself and Mr. Pitre because there has yet to be a problem that 

one Italian and one Irishman and one smart person couldn't 

solve.

THE COURT: Okay. That takes care of you.

MR. KELLY: I get it. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So what if I have told you I'm Irish and 

Italian?

MR. KELLY: Then I would say you overcame a remarkable 

and difficult childhood.

THE COURT: But it's true.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like the record to be clear 

that he made that same comment when I shared my ethnicity.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, I am Irish-Italian, and unlike 

Mr. -- and like Mr. Orsini, both of our names end in I. So --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 118

of 341
119

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. KELLY: Is there where I tell you where an appeal 

goes to whether it goes to bankruptcy or the Ninth Circuit.

THE COURT: I wouldn't know. I've never been 

appealed.

MR. KELLY: Well, and neither have I. So we have that 

in common.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, what judges learn is that just 

because you're reversed on appeal doesn't mean you were wrong.

MR. KELLY: Right. It's the same thing I think when 

juries come back against me, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Julian, we're going to get back 

to business here.

Who's next on your list?

MR. JULIAN: I am, Your Honor. 

I would like to address two, what I believe, are 

straightforward legal issues that I believe I can resolve 

rather quickly.

The phase 1 request by the debtors is for you to 

determine whether the California Supreme Court would overturn 

the California appellate court decisions.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. JULIAN: And they have misconstrued the Supreme 

Court -- the U.S. Supreme Court case on that. The U.S. Supreme 

Court in West v. American Telegraph stated that when the state 

supreme court has denied review of the appeal issue in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 119

of 341
120

PG&E Corp., 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

question, the federal court may not address it. They have 

construed that case to say that when the state supreme court 

has denied review, it's merely a data point as to whether the 

federal court should decide what the supreme court would do.

Au contraire. Here's --

THE COURT: What about -- I can't keep track of all 

the titles, the names -- the case involving San Diego Gas & 

Electric that's on before the U.S. Supreme Court for cert? Is 

that the same issue or different issue. I forgot the name. It 

was just in the brief.

MR. JULIAN: It's a related but different issue to my 

point.

THE COURT: Pardon?

MR. JULIAN: Related but different.

THE COURT: Because I don't know the issue. I just 

can't read all the --

MR. JULIAN: Right now, right now -- first let me 

address what the United States Supreme Court has said and then 

let me tell you about PG&E's loss of this issue repeatedly in 

the state court, the appellate court, and the supreme court.

THE COURT: I'm going to let you do that, but I'm 

going to stop for a minute and say, if you're so confident 

about that, why don't we just beat them on a motion? Why don't 

we just brief it be done? In other words, I mean, it's like --

Mr. Julian, it's like when we get ready to go to a trial and 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 120

of 341
121

PG&E Corp., 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

one guys says, I can win this case without going to trial. I 

say, then make a motion for summary judgment. So if I ask for 

cross briefing on this question and you have the slam dunk, 

we're done.

MR. JULIAN: Well, it's a difference between a threepage brief and a thirty-page brief.

THE COURT: Well, but I'll read it either way. My 

point is it's a getting issue and you feel very confident, and 

I think Ms. Dumas made a comment about it earlier. So there's 

no question in my mind that your side is very confident. Mr. 

Orsini and his colleagues know what happens if you make a 

frivolous, unsupported legal argument that should have 

consequences. I'm going to assume that he will make an 

argument that would pass that kind of muster, and there it is. 

You will have his brief, and he will have his brief, and I'll 

decide it.

I mean, seriously. I'm not kidding. Like we deal in 

bankruptcies cases all the time, Mr. Julian, you know that if a 

party is adverse to you and he says, I can win under this 

theory or that theory, and you say, you know what? The Ninth 

Circuit decided the X case, and this is my slam dunk, I'll say 

then brief it, or say, that's the end of it. We're done.

MR. JULIAN: You can do it that way. I just think 

it's a waste of time when the U.S. Supreme Court says, when the 

supreme court of a state has denied a petition for review --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 121

of 341
122

PG&E Corp., 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: I --

MR. JULIAN: -- which they have twice --

THE COURT: I agree. It sounds like a winning 

argument.

MR. JULIAN: All right.

THE COURT: And you don't need thirty pages.

MR. JULIAN: May I move to --

THE COURT: No, no. I just wanted you to tell me why 

that isn't a very efficient way to do it because I'd be 

inclined to do it. I'd be happy to do it that way.

MR. JULIAN: Well --

THE COURT: You can think about it.

MR. JULIAN: Because they've proposed it in the middle 

of a trial I'm supposed to be in.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, no. You're in the middle of 

an estimation motion, and the proposal is let's break this down 

into parts. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pitre certainly made their point 

about phases 2 and 3, and you believe that -- and I believe 

that Mr. Tredinnick for the City, same thing. 

Your papers make it sound like you can't lose it. So 

fine. Let's go be done and make them lose it. I don't know. 

I don't know the law. I do know the law on what lower courts 

can do. I just within the last few weeks issued a decision in 

a matter here in our court where I raised that issue. It had 

nothing to do with PG&E and nothing to do with this legal 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 122

of 341
123

PG&E Corp., 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

principle, but it was what I speculated in writing what the 

California Supreme Court would rule on this particular issue 

that I addressed just weeks ago. So I'm up on the issue on how 

to attack the issue. You need to tell me how to put the issue 

to bed once and for all.

MR. JULIAN: I don't think the parties need to brief 

it in light of the Supreme Court's 1940 decision that says, 

when the highest court --

THE COURT: Do you want to submit it on this? You 

want me to submit it on this brief? I mean, I'd thought you 

want to brief it. And if you want to submit it on the brief, 

I'll --

MR. JULIAN: I don't think there's need for briefing.

THE COURT: Do you want to submit it?

MR. JULIAN: I will submit that point on the need for 

briefing on that Supreme Court case, yes.

THE COURT: Well, no. But do you want to submit the 

question that inverse condemnation is alive and well, if you 

will, then binding on the utility and the debtor.

MR. JULIAN: I --

THE COURT: I mean, if you -- Mr. Julian, I'm not 

playing games with you. If you want to have time and you want 

me to say, we're going to handle phase 1 by an exchange of 

briefs in due course, I will do it.

MR. JULIAN: You signal the way you want to go. I 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 123

of 341
124

PG&E Corp., 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

want to move to the next point.

THE COURT: You agree, don't you, that I can make that 

decision? That's not an Article III question; do you agree? I 

mean, do you agree that --

MR. JULIAN: I think what you're -- that's a different 

question. That's a --

THE COURT: I'll rephrase the question. If I ask your 

side and the debtor to brief the question of whether inverse 

condemnation as a matter of law is applicable to this debtor, 

these debtors, do you agree that I can be the decider of that 

question?

MR. JULIAN: Yes. After the bar date passes because 

the issue is, is it a court proceeding or not? It becomes a 

court proceeding binding on claimants once they've filed their 

claims, and so you don't know. You can't make that decision, 

in my view, until the bar date passes and the claimants 

establish for you that you're estimating their claims as a 

court proceeding is core because they've submitted to the 

jurisdiction by filing proofs of claim.

THE COURT: I think what I'm doing is I'm asking if 

you differ with my ability to decide one component of the 

estimation?

MR. JULIAN: Or proceeding after October 21, in my 

view.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Go ahead to the next point.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 124

of 341
125

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: The second question that you asked us to 

look at is personal injury, and I have six responses to that. 

The debtors' reply brief on estimation states that Your Honor 

should look at the legislative history as explained by their 

favorite case, the Gawker case, that discussed the fact that 

the legislative history to the 1994 statutes showed that what 

Congress was trying to do in adopting the personal-injury 

statute was respond to the asbestos plaintiffs' bars request to 

have special --

THE COURT: Wait one second. We're getting a little 

buzzing on here. Are you getting that? Do you hear that? See 

if it's this unit or something else. Well, maybe it's just my 

speaker here. 

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

MR. JULIAN: And the point they made, Your Honor, was 

that Congress was responding to the asbestos plaintiffs' bar's 

request for jury trials with respect to personal-injury claims. 

And so their point was it came from the asbestos plaintiffs' 

bar, and so you ought to look at the types of personal-injury 

cases that they were prosecuting. 

And as we all know, Manville and UNR were the two big 

asbestos cases that lent themselves to the 1994 legislation, 

and they're right about the plaintiffs' bar. So I think all we

have to do is look at the plaintiff's definition of personalinjury claims in the Manville and UNR claims of reorganization 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 125

of 341
126

PG&E Corp., 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

to see what they were talking about. 

And the UNR explanation of personal-injury claim's 

definition is that 143 Bankruptcy Reporter 506 at page 513, the 

1992 case that preceded the legislation by a year-and-a-half. 

And the plaintiff bar's definition of an asbestos disease claim 

was quote, "all liability for personal injury (where there's 

physical, emotional, or otherwise)". 

In other words, they're right. The plaintiffs' bar 

requested Congress to adopt the personal-injury statute for 

their claims, and they defined them in the Manville and UNR 

plans as personal injury, meaning physical, emotional, or 

otherwise. That's point one.

Point two is when Congress wanted personal injury to 

mean personal bodily injury, Congress said just that in Section 

523(d)11(b) of the Code dealing with exemptions for quote, 

"personal bodily injury" claims. That's 523(d)11(d).

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 522.

MR. JULIAN: I'm sorry. 522. Thank you.

522 deals with exemptions.

THE COURT: And you're looking at 522(b)11? Okay. 

You might have cited that in the papers. I didn't remember 

everything. I just couldn't read everything, but I'll make a 

note of it. So, if you --

MR. JULIAN: 522(d)11.

THE COURT: B? 522(b) --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 126

of 341
127

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: Capital D reads --

THE COURT: Oh, D, okay.

MR. JULIAN: Yeah, of payment. Here's what's exempt. 

The payment --

THE COURT: Yeah. I'm familiar.

MR. JULIAN: Yeah. And that's --

THE COURT: Personal bodily injury not including --

MR. JULIAN: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- pain and suffering or compensation.

MR. JULIAN: And the Grossman court in the Ninth 

Circuit found that to be persuasive in deciding that personal 

injury was defined as I said.

The third reason is that all of the Ninth Circuit 

cases, lower court, include a motion for stress in Section 157 

personal-injury claims, as I think you know. And --

THE COURT: Well, there's no controlling cases there.

MR. JULIAN: Pardon?

THE COURT: There's no controlling case.

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: I mean, the briefs are the -- I forget 

whether it's the OCC or the debtor because the briefs are 

overlapping, but there are a couple of summaries, and there's 

an analysis and Gawker is -- they take issue with Gawker, and 

you take the other side.

I mean, the case law that both sides have cited, if 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 127

of 341
128

PG&E Corp., 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

I'm not mistaken, there's no binding precedent. I just have to 

decide whether there's enough evidence to be there. And again, 

I'll go back to your -- it's the same question I asked you 

about inverse condemnation. Do you agree that I, as a nonArticle III judge, can make the decision that personal 

injury -- excuse me -- that emotional distress and any related 

tort falls in or out of the statue here of the 5 -- 157(b)2?

MR. JULIAN: You may make the decision. And as I 

state in the last page of our brief, with respect to --

estimation decisions with respect to the inverse-condemnation 

claim, that's a core proceeding in my view once the bar date 

passes.

THE COURT: So --

MR. JULIAN: But with respect to the rest of the 

personal-injury claims, I believe that's a noncore 

determination.

THE COURT: I understand. I understand. I just 

want -- look, the briefing and the reading of the statute, 

you'll never see the word, emotional distress, and of course, 

so if Congress had said, emotional distress is core or is 

noncore, we wouldn't have this debate. I have to decide 

whether I believe it's in or out. 

So to put it in simple terms, I think to get it right, 

you're agreeing with -- or saying that at least if we get past 

the bar date that as a core matter I have the statutory 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 128

of 341
129

PG&E Corp., 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

authority to decide whether inverse condemnation is or is not a 

viable legal issue that can be invoked here or defended. I 

mean, you know what I mean. It's binds on the privately owned 

utility or it's not. 

And similarly, in an estimation trial, I can either 

include as part of personal injury and wrongful death, 

emotional distress, or exclude. Either way -- so if we have a 

victim who has suffered emotional distress and there's no 

question in my mind, you've made the point abundantly clear, 

and I know what anybody knows, there are enormous emotional 

distress claimants. 

I can decide whether it requires the Article III 

decision maker or if it can be done by someone who isn't an 

Article III. That's all.

MR. JULIAN: It's a noncore proceeding.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. JULIAN: You typically do it, yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JULIAN: But, Your Honor --

THE COURT: We're together on that --

MR. JULIAN: I'd like --

THE COURT: -- issue. Go ahead.

MR. JULIAN: I'd like to explain why their favorite 

case, Gawker, says the claims in this case are personal injury. 

Gawker says at 571 B.R., page 625, that 157(b)(2)(b) is, and I 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 129

of 341
130

PG&E Corp., 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

quote, "limited to claims involving bodily injury, physical 

trauma, and/or a severe psychiatric impairment beyond mere 

shame and humiliation", and as you know from the doctors -- let 

me read it again. "Psychiatric impairment," that's emotional 

distress "beyond humiliation and shame". 

In other words, what happened in Gawker, the judge 

said, look, the fellow felt humiliated when he lost his 

copyright. But what we have here as shown by our brief and Dr. 

Pittman's (ph.) declaration watching the videos of the people 

suffocating --

THE COURT: I read Dr. Pittman's declaration. It's 

quite impressive.

MR. JULIAN: Yeah. It's not shame and humiliation for 

fleeing the fire and thinking you're going to die and 

suffocate. 

THE COURT: Understood.

MR. JULIAN: It's severe --

THE COURT: Understood. 

MR. JULIAN: -- using the word of Gawker, psychiatric 

impairment. So even using Gawker, the Gawker decision itself, 

we have personal-injury claims in this case. That's point 

four.

THE COURT: Yeah. But what that means to me is that 

you make a persuasive argument that your client suffered these 

types of horrible tragedies need to have their claim estimated 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 130

of 341
131

PG&E Corp., 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

for distribution purposes by an Article III judge. The 

question is whether it can be estimated for confirmation 

purposes. And again, we're back to the whole question of the 

cap and the noncap.

Do you want to address those --

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: -- issues, Mr. Orsini?

Okay. If you want to go with something else, fine. I 

need to get your response to Mr. Orsini's view of what happens 

to a claimant who doesn't consent to participate in a trust and 

has his or her jury right, whether it be in the district court 

or in the superior court.

MR. JULIAN: So I'd start one step back, which is if 

PG&E said to us here, these claims ride through the bankruptcy 

in a trust or otherwise, and whatever their liquidated amount, 

we'll pay them in full, whatever it is, you wouldn't hear a 

peep out of me. 

THE COURT: No, I know.

MR. JULIAN: And if they wanted to say, we'll 

estimate. We'll estimate for it, and we'll have a ten-day 

trial, twenty-trial, whatever you want, you wouldn't hear a 

peep out of me because of what the Bittner case says, common 

sense. If there's a mistake in estimation, it's no harm, no 

foul. I --

THE COURT: But again, I don't think we can bank on 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 131

of 341
132

PG&E Corp., 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 Bittner dicta for this case which isn't --

MR. JULIAN: So what do you -- so what I think you 

ought to do?

THE COURT: -- isn't being liquidated.

MR. JULIAN: Right.

THE COURT: Well, no. But I want you to tell me 

whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Orsini. I'll restate 

and make sure I got it right. 

Mr. Orsini said, if a victim of the fire does not 

formally consent to participate in the trust and wishes to have 

his or her day in court elsewhere in front of a jury -- let's 

take the more typical jury, superior court -- and gets a 

judgment of substantial sums of money, that sum of money is put 

into the trust, and the victim gets the pro rata share with 

that claim for that victim liquidated to the penny, whereas all 

the other victims are not necessarily liquidated to the penny. 

And what Mr. Orsini also said, not committing, but 

said, maybe, maybe the company's position will be for the 

victims of the Ghost Ship fire, they will ride through. He 

didn't say for sure, but he just raised it because I raised 

Ghost Ship as being so different in terms of -- not in terms of 

the tragedy, but in terms of the causation and all the other 

things. 

So my question to you is if I go with this estimation 

and it estimates for purposes of a plan, do you understand that 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 132

of 341
133

PG&E Corp., 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

any individual claims that is determined by a jury still goes 

into the fund? Do you agree with that or disagree with that?

MR. JULIAN: If that's what the plan says, but --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. JULIAN: -- I think these plans say that all 

claims -- all those claims are -- they've said it in their 

papers. All claims will be channeled to the trust.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. JULIAN: So the plan that they have explained and 

the bondholders have explained and several has explained is all 

claims are channeled to the trust, the answer is yes. That 

jury-trial claimant's claim is in the trust. It gets 

liquidated in one of four ways: settlement, mediation, speedy 

arbitration, or jury trial. That's the way they all work.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. JULIAN: And so if there's --

THE COURT: But it doesn't pass through?

MR. JULIAN: Pardon me?

THE COURT: It doesn't pass through.

MR. JULIAN: It doesn't pass through. If there's one 

of them and it's more than you estimated, who cares?

THE COURT: Well, no --

MR. JULIAN: But if there's a whole bunch of them --

THE COURT: That claimant cares, but that's --

MR. JULIAN: No. But you're not estimating 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 133

of 341
134

PG&E Corp., 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

individually. You're estimating in the aggregate.

THE COURT: But that's what I'm saying. If there is 

a -- if leaving aside all the issues that Mr. Pitre and Mr. 

Kelly raised impressive arguments about, if at the end of the 

day, not by consent, but by judicial decree, there is a 

determination that the trust is -- pick a number, twenty 

billion dollars. That means everybody that opts into that 

trust is going to be participating in the matrix and there's a 

twenty-billion-dollar cap. 

But it also means that if you have one claimant who 

doesn't opt in and takes his or her case to a jury and gets a 

twenty-million-dollar judgment, that twenty million goes into 

the trust and gets maybe some lesser amount than twenty 

million, and that means in the cap trust, but the jury ride is 

predicted. The distribution isn't changed. Do you agree? Do 

you agree that that's the way --

MR. JULIAN: That the jury=trial --

THE COURT: -- that's the way they read it?

MR. JULIAN: The jury-trial --

THE COURT: I think that's the way Mr. Orsini argued 

it, and he can correct me if I got it wrong. What do you 

think?

MR. JULIAN: The jury-trial right is not impaired. 

The recovery is.

THE COURT: Right.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 134

of 341
135

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: So you will end up with what they want, 

with what equity wants.

THE COURT: But is it what you think is the right 

result? What does the law require? What happens after we've 

made -- after a court has made the estimation, what happens to 

the individual person who takes the case to a jury and gets the 

twenty-million-dollar judgment?

MR. JULIAN: He gets whatever percentage the trust 

agreement says he should get.

THE COURT: And you agree with that?

MR. JULIAN: That's --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JULIAN: I can't tell you --

THE COURT: I'm not -- look, I'm not asking you to 

agree and --

MR. JULIAN: I can't tell you until I see the trust 

agreement, but that's the way they typically work.

THE COURT: Mr. Julian, I know, but you agree that 

that's what the law requires? That's all I'm asking. I'm not 

trying to play games with you.

MR. JULIAN: In my view, the law could not require 

that because at plan confirmation, if the committee doesn't 

consent and it's crammed down --

THE COURT: I didn't -- I'm assuming the committee 

consents, but one -- the committee -- the consent by the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 135

of 341
136

PG&E Corp., 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

committee isn't binding on an individual --

MR. JULIAN: If everyone consents, Your Honor, and the 

trust -- it would go into trust and be paid out of the trust.

THE COURT: I just said, every single claimant isn't 

bound by the position of the committee, is it?

MR. JULIAN: No.

THE COURT: No.

MR. JULIAN: They would have their --

THE COURT: No, no. Stop right there. Let's suppose 

despite all the complaints that you and your colleagues have 

made that nobody is talking to you, let's suppose they talk or 

let's suppose I talk and say, the estimation is twenty billion 

dollars, and let's suppose one victim of one fire says, I don't 

want to participate. I want my jury trial. And so that person 

gets his jury trial and gets a jury verdict of twenty million 

or thirty million or a hundred million. Whatever that number 

is, it goes into the math --

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: The numerator over the denominator --

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: -- of the fund. And you appear to 

acknowledge that that is so?

MR. JULIAN: That's the way it would work, and the 

question is are the total claims, they are thirty or forty 

billion, and you've left them with twenty. That's the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 136

of 341
137

PG&E Corp., 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

unfairness.

THE COURT: But isn't that the nature of the 

estimation process? Isn't that -- I mean, isn't that what 

we're all stuck with? You and I are not victims, but we as 

lawyers and judges, and your client victims, unfortunately for 

them, that's the consequence. That's all the more reason to 

make sure the trust is bigger rather than smaller if that can 

be done.

MR. JULIAN: If that's the way it works, that's the 

way the statute reads --

THE COURT: But look, contrast that. Suppose, for its 

own reasons, the company decides to treat the Ghost Ship fire 

differently, because it is different. 

What I heard Mr. Orsini say is maybe the company's 

view will be the Ghost Ship victims get what they get outside 

the trust which means if a Ghost Ship fire victim proves that 

he or she suffered twenty million dollars caused by PG&E, that 

person has a claim for twenty million dollars, regardless of 

whatever the trust would have had the person participated in 

the trust.

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, "yes" means you accept -- I take it 

that means you're agreeing with the analysis? And I want you 

to -- again, I'm not trying to trip you up. I'm trying to make 

sure there is agreement with you and Mr. Orsini as to the way 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 137

of 341
138

PG&E Corp., 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 law works. I think you're right, but I don't want to -- I 

don't want to make it sound like I'm trying to set you up. I 

want to -- I want you to tell me you agree --

MR. JULIAN: My answer is it depends on what the plan 

and the trust agreement says.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay. We'll leave it at that.

MR. JULIAN: Which is speculative now.

THE COURT: Let's leave it at that. 

And, Mr. Orsini, I invite you, when you come back up, 

to clarify anything if I've misstated your client's position or 

your interpretation of the way the bankruptcy laws work here.

So, Mr. Julian, do you want to have some more -- do 

you have some more things you want to cover?

MR. JULIAN: Yes, I think Mr. Pitre and Mr. Kelly have 

covered the due-process point. I will just say -- I'm going to 

personalize this in terms of what I have to do to get -- at an 

estimation hearing. I get it. It's not putting on the same 

case they put in state court. But you just -- but I've got to 

put on a case.

THE COURT: Okay. By the way, was there an estimation 

hearing in A.H. Robins?

MR. JULIAN: There was.

THE COURT: And did the judge set some ground rules? 

And whether it was one or two, I don't care. It wasn't a 

traditional trial, right? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 138

of 341
139

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: No.

THE COURT: It was something to do what 502 said has 

to be done.

MR. JULIAN: There were questionnaires; there were 

expert witnesses. Again, much different case; very simple.

THE COURT: Much different case, but the judge started 

the hearing and ended the hearing by saying these are the rules 

for estimation.

MR. JULIAN: Right.

THE COURT: And well, I don't care what they were. 

They weren't what those -- Mr. Pitre and Mr. Kelly are used to 

doing when they try a case before state courts or juries.

MR. JULIAN: A. H. Robins makes the case. It was one 

issue. You've heard Mr. Orsini say today how they're going 

through every fire and say his client did this.

THE COURT: No, I know. I know. 

MR. JULIAN: I have to get witnesses to talk about 

each one.

THE COURT: Well, we're going to talk later about how 

the estimation trial should be conducted and what are the 

ground rules, and what's --

MR. JULIAN: So today there won't be a trial date 

set -- or estimation hearing dates?

THE COURT: No, they won't.

MR. JULIAN: Then I can leave due process, Your Honor, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 139

of 341
140

PG&E Corp., 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

move on to something else.

THE COURT: No, I thought I made it clear 

before. Maybe I didn't or maybe you didn't understand me. I 

thought I said regardless of how I make -- how I rule on 

exclusivity, which is really much more separate, and relief 

from stay, I still don't have to -- we have to deal with the 

assignment of the estimation process. Yeah.

MR. JULIAN: So I put myself in your shoes the other 

day, partly because Ms. Dumas insisted on it, and --

THE COURT: Don't take her advice on that; you 

should've let her make the argument. Anyway, what did she tell 

you to do?

MR. JULIAN: How would you do it if you were the 

judge? Be fair to the judge. And so that's why we wrote our 

roadmap. We came up with this idea. 

First of all, as you heard, Tubbs is huge in terms of 

what has to be done. Mr. Orsini, himself, has asked you to 

schedule three weeks of hearings on estimation. That's 

estimation; that's not trial. 

THE COURT: I know. 

MR. JULIAN: Three weeks.

THE COURT: That's estimation. I know.

MR. JULIAN: And my view is all the other issues for 

all the other fires are just as complicated at Tubbs, now that 

you've heard that negligence encompasses everything, right?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 140

of 341
141

PG&E Corp., 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: Well, I heard today what I heard. I 

thought it was more precise.

MR. JULIAN: Well, that's what they hoodwink. By the 

way, you probably read their brief and their 10Q and the Welles 

Declaration the same way I did. Which was, the Welles 

Declaration -- their 10Q, Your Honor -- said if their equipment 

is a substantial cause, it's strict liability -- right there in 

their 10Q on their Wells Declaration. Strict liability if 

they're a substantial cause.

Mr. Orsini put in the word "cause" and had us all 

thinking he had agreed to something. This is the standard 

hoodwink that they do, but I'm going to address what I think 

you should do.

THE COURT: Well, let's not personalize it. We're 

dealing with how to fix it going forward, so --

MR. JULIAN: Okay. So I -- we recommend Tubbs be 

tried for all the reasons: discovery referee, judge is used to 

dealing with jury trials, instructions, managing a jury -- you 

can get good data. As Judge Perris said, when something like 

that is tried, at least we now know, and the parties can 

negotiate off that. So you get Tubbs off your plate that way. 

And then I thought, how can we make your life easier, 

Judge Montali's --

THE COURT: I don't care about making my life easier. 

I want to do my job, so let's --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 141

of 341
142

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: Well, I'm talking about streamlining the 

litigation.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay.

MR. JULIAN: Let's put it -- instead of making your 

life easier, let's use the word "streamlining the litigation".

I tried to think of a way that to avoid the districtcourt conundrum of two judges sitting for de novo review. So 

what we suggested was, if the inverse-condemnation damage 

portion of the case was going to be simple -- which I now 

understand it's not -- then you could do that as a core 

proceeding. And because it encompasses many of the damages, 

you could have the parties do that as a core proceeding.

So let me modify that now, because I now know with the 

change of tune here, that it's a bigger case than we thought. 

There is a way -- and Mr. Kelly averted to it a moment ago --

we could estimate damages. What are the damages over the next 

four months? It doesn't matter when Tubbs is tried because 

damages are being estimated. Tubbs comes in and --

THE COURT: Well, don't you think because the size --

I mean, Tubbs is such a monster compared to all the fires in 

terms of total damage, and that it kind of almost has to be 

addressed?

MR. JULIAN: No, because Your Honor, I've got the 

experts; I'm working with them.

THE COURT: Well, I know but -- I know you are; I'm 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 142

of 341
143

PG&E Corp., 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

sure you are, but the damage is for Tubbs.

MR. JULIAN: You just throw them in into the matrix. 

You got the GS -- you got the real property data already. You 

could do this in four to five months. You could do it in 

December and January; the Tubbs trial could take place in 

January. 

You're estimating the --

THE COURT: What happened -- okay, look. I didn't 

think we were going to do this, but what happens if the jury 

comes in for PG&E in Tubbs trial?

MR. JULIAN: I would say would Judge Perris said. 

It's data -- better data than you have now.

THE COURT: Well, yeah, but what happens? 

MR. JULIAN: Oh.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, we're back on the next morning 

for the estimation trial, and Mr. Kelly comes in or Mr. Pitre 

comes in and says we just lost the Tubbs trial for our test 

jury. Do we then take off --

MR. JULIAN: That verdict --

THE COURT: Well, yeah, that verdict gets taken, but 

every other plaintiff's lawyer in the room is going to say, I 

could've won that case. 

But the trial judge says, well, hmm, that's a big 

factor. They don't throw a pitman at you and say you're 

estimated at zero, but it's got to be a low number. It's got 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 143

of 341
144

PG&E Corp., 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

to be a real low number, and is that a good thing to do?

MR. JULIAN: No. This is done all the time, Your 

Honor.

THE COURT: Well, this case isn't done all time, so --

MR. JULIAN: Well, but I'm going to explain it.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. JULIAN: If there were ten trials that took place 

and ten settlements --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. JULIAN: -- the bankruptcy trial would look at 

those and say, great weight is afforded to those.

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. JULIAN: And it's as Judge Perris said: that's 

data that is going to be influential in resolving this. It's 

better than having an advisory trial.

THE COURT: There's no question that it's data and it 

might motivate settlements. The question is, it would have --

it would seem to me if the trial -- if I were the trial judge 

determining the estimation, and I just got told PG&E won the 

Tubbs trial, there would be a huge swing. And you're saying, 

okay, I mean, that's a data point. It's a big data point.

MR. JULIAN: That's the data point. I can't 

contradict it --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. JULIAN: -- after arguing for it.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 144

of 341
145

PG&E Corp., 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: All right. 

MR. JULIAN: I mean --

THE COURT: So, all right. So I got your roadmap; 

that's the roadmap. Go to Tubbs assuming that we get a verdict 

in and et cetera.

MR. JULIAN: Well, the most important thing is when 

we -- I hope we come back to you for more estimation 

procedures. And what I believe they have to do is standard. 

They have to identify all the factual and legal issues that are 

going to be estimated. And I'm not suggesting, Your Honor, a 

trial, so --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. JULIAN: -- that has to be done --

THE COURT: But then I owe it to you to make sure you 

got what I said three times -- I'll say it a fourth time: I'm 

not setting an estimation trial today. I'm going to figure out 

these other questions. We're identifying -- this discussion 

that we're having this morning is identifying a whole bunch of 

issues that -- maybe they're all in the brief; maybe they're 

not. But if I'm going to be in charge of managing this case, I 

now know what we're going to have a schedule for this, this, 

and this. And right high on the to-do list for Mr. Orsini is 

get this discovery issue straightened out, so --

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: -- we can decide. And again, I'll 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 145

of 341
146

PG&E Corp., 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

repeat: if I'm presiding over the estimation trial, my job is 

to say what the rules are, and I'm not going to do it in two 

hours per side. I don't know what I'm going to do, but I know 

we're going to do everything possible to make it proper and 

fair and the way I'm supposed to do it. So leave it at that.

MR. JULIAN: I will offer up --

THE COURT: You got to trust me. You got to trust me. 

That's what I'll try to do if I'm doing it.

MR. JULIAN: I will offer up one observation. I know 

you have many different alternatives that you could use here. 

If you were to use the alternative of -- as you know in our 

brief, we thought you should be the master judge.

THE COURT: You listed -- oh, yeah, you -- that was 

your master judge. I don't know how I would do that, but you 

want to talk about it now or deal with it later on the relief 

from stay? I mean, it's -- again, it's a little of each.

MR. JULIAN: A little on relief from stay.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. JULIAN: But as to estimation my only point would 

be this: if you were to be the master judge, as I suggested, 

and you were to estimate Tubbs, the data review on that is 

mammoth. And I believe, if you look at the days to de novo 

review in the district court, rare as it is, that we're looking 

at a longer time period than if we just sent the case to state 

court for a Tubbs trial.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 146

of 341
147

PG&E Corp., 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: Okay. Listen, Mr. Julian, and I'm going 

to interrupt our colloquy here and offer something that I want 

everybody to think about. And I am not asking for any response 

to what I'm about to say until a little bit later. And I'm 

going to look to the counsel for the creditors' committee for a 

homework assignment, okay? 

So in reading the papers, what the TCC said very 

emphatically is that -- and including this notion of working 

with the superior-court judge in the Tubbs trial -- is well, 

the basic bankruptcy choices are: have proposed findings and 

conclusions; have as an alternative -- as prior counsel, Ms. 

Crawford (ph.) said, have a two-judge trial -- I just know 

that's awkward, even if you did it in Robins; and the third 

one, I believe, was to refer to the district court.

I have a fourth choice. And I'm just going to put 

this out. Nobody in the papers suggested choice four, and so 

what I'm going to tell you is that I want the two committees --

I mean, I'm sorry, the TCC and the ad hoc committee -- and this 

is not to minimize the role of the bondholder group, but 

particularly, and -- let me -- I know I'm confusing the point. 

Let me start over again.

I want focus by the debtor's counsel and advisors, the 

TCC counsel and advisors, and the ad hoc subrogation committee 

and its advisors -- but ad hoc subrogation, not in the context 

of exclusivity, but in the context of representing an enormous 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 147

of 341
148

PG&E Corp., 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

class of people -- of victims who then were paid by insurance 

companies, and now we have insurance companies under the 

subrogation rights. In other words, to think of it in terms of 

the plan outlines as the two significantly impaired classes. 

I would like the three groups to reflect on whether 

they would be willing to consent to the entire estimation trial 

in this court without the Article III judge. And here's why 

I'm going to suggest it, and here's why I don't want to hear 

any discussion about it.

First of all, I believe the law permits consent to a 

non-Article III judge hearing some of these matters by consent. 

I don't think there's any prohibition because there are a 

million things in the bankruptcy law and rule where people can 

waive their right to Article III judge.

Secondly, for all the reasons we stated, there are 

complications involved with two judges, proposed findings and 

conclusions, appellate review, and so on. 

Thirdly, I think that although it's my job if I am --

if the parties are willing to consent, then they have to trust 

me that I will do my job. And so some of these issues about 

personal injury and wrongful death, does it include emotional 

distress or not, go away. 

And so what I'm going to ask the official creditors' 

committee counsel to do is simply, after the hearings today, to 

have a period of time when the three groups discuss privately 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 148

of 341
149

PG&E Corp., 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 themselves and report to counsel for the official 

creditors' committee to report either all parties are agreed or 

there is not unanimous consent. I don't want to know who 

agreed or disagreed. 

If I get -- and I'm just, in effect, creating the 

official creditors' committee counsel to act like a mediator 

might. I'm not really asking them to do the mediation; I'm 

just taking a significant player who isn't on this position as 

direct. But if the tort committee and its counsel, and the 

debtors and their counsel, and the ad hoc subrogation committee 

and their counsel believe that a most-efficient way to do the 

estimation is one judge -- this one in this courtroom -- then 

I'm game to give it a try, and we eliminate a lot of problems. 

We might create more, but it's different.

The reason why I don't want a response is that I want 

you all to think about it. I want you to feel absolutely one 

hundred percent comfortable of advising your clients to say no, 

and all you have to do is tell the official creditors' 

committee counsel. And all I want from him -- and I'm not 

naming who, because of all the different -- you all know who 

represents them; the different lawyers appearing for different 

times, so Mr. Leblanc and Mr. Dunne or Mr. -- the other one --

Bray. It doesn't matter who it is. I just want somebody to 

say they've all agreed and if that's the answer, than that's 

going to change the outcome, and I won't be making any proposed 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 149

of 341
150

PG&E Corp., 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

recommendation. If there's even one dissent, I don't want to 

know who dissented. So I'll get the response back and suggest 

this in the next few days.

So it has nothing to do with my decision. The 

decision's on the relief from stay and estimation have nothing 

to do with this issue. My purpose in making this proposal, 

frankly, is to eliminate some of the issues that wouldn't even 

exist if President Trump decided to give me Article III status 

tomorrow or I decided to -- or any of you had decided to make a 

motion to withdraw the reference and the district judge agreed.

You'll recall that, already in this case, there was a 

motion to withdraw the reference, and I made a recommendation 

to the district judge not to take it, and that judge took my 

advice and -- again, without getting into the correctness of my 

decision, I made a decision and moved on. So if everybody 

agrees that I can do it, I'll do it. And I don't know what the 

outcome will be. 

So with that, I don't -- I really -- I don't want any 

discussion about this. It's not a secret; I'm not asking 

anybody to pretend that I didn't say it. I just don't want to 

have any public discussion about it because I think that there 

may be somebody in here that says, that guy's crazy; I wouldn't 

trust him with anything. Then all you have to do is say no and 

there's no consent, and I will deal with the question of what 

the rules require me to do by way of a recommendation for 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 150

of 341
151

PG&E Corp., 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

withdraw of the reference.

So unless you have anything further, Mr. Julian, on 

what we've been talking about, I'll take whatever counsel wants 

to be heard that we didn't call, and then I'll let Mr. Orsini 

have the closing discussion, and then we'll take a break.

MR. MCCALLEN: Good morning, Your Honor. Benjamin 

McCallen, Willkie Farr & Gallagher --

THE COURT: Mr. McCallen. 

MR. MCCALLEN: -- on behalf of the ad hoc subrogation 

group. 

Your Honor, I'm going to limit my remarks in this 

portion of the hearing to estimation. Although as Your Honor 

pointed out and rightly noted, there is a lot of overlap here 

between estimation and lifting the stay.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: But I do want to make one observation 

at the outset about lifting the stay, and that is to respond to 

comments made by the committee. And there were statements in 

the debtor's brief, as well as in the equity holders' brief 

that somehow, Your Honor is faced with a either/or decision on 

lifting the stay and estimation.

THE COURT: Well, no, actually, I saw that was one of 

the suggestions; it could be both. So I didn't consider it 

only or either/or. 

MR. MCCALLEN: Absolutely. And just for one second to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 151

of 341
152

PG&E Corp., 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

put it in context, Your Honor, because there's also been 

discussions about appeals and what effect that would have. And 

the bottom line is -- and I think Your Honor said it earlier in 

the context of setting one of the cases -- it's probably the 

most valuable data point that this court could have in terms of 

measuring the total damages that the debtor's would be liable 

for outside of bankruptcy, because that's the purpose of 

estimation is to figure out what would the damages be outside 

of bankruptcy for the Tubbs fire. 

The individual tort victims have that trial right 

under the state-court law. And in addition to it being 

consistent with their trial right, it's also the fairest 

outcome in terms of, obviously, it's impossible to liquidate 

all the claims and to give all the individuals their trial 

rights, but to have that -- a representative sample, take the 

issue of Tubbs causation to trial, and to have a jury render a 

verdict on that, is this -- we would posit -- is the singlemost valuable data point that this Court could have on what's 

going to be the most contested issue -- one of the most 

contested, if not the most contested issue -- in any 

proceedings in front of Your Honor, which is what are the 

liabilities for the Tubbs fire.

THE COURT: Okay. On that, Mr. McCallen, I agree. 

This is so intertwined that it's important for you to say it, 

but I need you or Mr. Kelly or Mr. Pitre or somebody, after the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 152

of 341
153

PG&E Corp., 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

break, to give me much more detail on how it would really 

happen. What would really happen? It doesn't just magically 

happen four months from tomorrow that there's a trial, so 

somebody has to tell me more detail, what the scenario would 

be.

MR. MCCALLEN: You mean in terms of the process of how 

we'd get to the trial or --

THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, I can sign an order this 

afternoon that grants relief from stay. And reading some of 

the briefs, one would think that four months from tomorrow 

there might be a jury trial starting in Judge Karnow's court, 

and somehow I don't think it actually happens that way. So I 

need you or one of the other litigators to tell me how it'd 

happen.

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: And I'm doing what I told Mr. Julian and 

he and I do: we're answering -- and Kelly: we answer our own 

questions. But I have to know when that trial starts, but also 

when it ends. 

MR. MCCALLEN: Um-hum.

THE COURT: And what is the likely time frame when 

that data point happens, and no one can tell me that June 30th 

is going to move, so it's still June 30th either way unless 

the --

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure. Sure.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 153

of 341
154

PG&E Corp., 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: -- Governor and company tell me they've 

changed it.

MR. MCCALLEN: I think there's two elements to that, 

is what will be happening in this court and what's happening in 

state court, so let me talk about --

THE COURT: Yeah, but --

MR. MCCALLEN: -- this court first.

THE COURT: -- as you pointed out, that's a mega data 

point.

MR. MCCALLEN: Exactly.

THE COURT: Okay. But if I'm told, well, you're going 

to get that data point in April, that's not very helpful.

MR. MCCALLEN: Understood. And so let me -- I know 

there was a mountain of paper filed by all the parties here.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. MCCALLEN: And so let me start, then, by framing 

for Your Honor, what it is that we and our papers said that we 

think the Court should be doing going forward because it's 

different than what the debtors say. 

Let me begin by saying we're not contesting that 

estimation is going to be appropriate in these cases. There's 

going to have be estimation. There's non-Tubbs fires and the 

issue, at the very least, of negligence in those cases. And 

then even in Tubbs, Your Honor, although we think there should 

be a jury trial, all of the plaintiffs are not going to have 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 154

of 341
155

PG&E Corp., 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

jury trials; there's only going to be a handful. 

THE COURT: Well, do you -- but you're using plural. 

So there's going to be more one trial, in your opinion?

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, it's partly up to Your Honor, and 

partly up to the state court. But I understand, the TCC is --

THE COURT: Well, no, it's not up to me. If I grant 

relief from stay, I don't think I grant it for certain people, 

I mean --

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, you have --

THE COURT: Or maybe I do.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- you have a motion in front of you to 

grant it for eight to -- I think it's now thirteen people as 

Your Honor said.

THE COURT: Yeah, but a bunch of other people have -- 

I thought -- well, okay, it's at least thirteen because your 

group had, I think, five, and TCC had the first eight.

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, to clarif --

THE COURT: It doesn't matter. There's at least 

eight, at least that number, and I thought the count was up to 

about thirty-five. 

And there are some -- Mr. McCallen, what I'm trying to 

say is --

MR. MCCALLEN: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- if I grant relief from stay for the 

parties that made the motion or joined the motion, I don't know 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 155

of 341
156

PG&E Corp., 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

whether that means there will be one trial or multiple trials 

in superior court. But that's what I need some help on from 

somebody when I'm making my decisions after it's fully 

discussed this afternoon.

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: Okay. Sorry. I didn't mean to belabor 

the point.

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure. So let me go back and say what 

our proposal is with respect to this court first, and then I'll 

talk about --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. MCCALLEN: -- the state court. 

With respect to what goes in this court, we actually 

take, I think, a very simple approach that is prudent, which 

is, as Your Honor said, this cannot and should not be decided 

today. 

The debtors have put forward a proposal. and I'm 

going to spend the bulk of my time today talking about three 

reasons why their proposal doesn't work and shouldn't be 

adopted by this Court.

What the Court should do is it should send the parties 

to talk, which is kind of what the debtors say about phase 3; 

but the whole thing, right? We have not put forward an 

alternative proposal. The TCC, Mr. Pitre, Mr. Kelly all raise 

valid points about the level of complexity of the issues that 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 156

of 341
157

PG&E Corp., 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

are going to be in front of Your Honor. We have thoughts about 

how that should be tried; I'm sure they do. I'm sure Mr. 

Orsini and the debtors do, as well as potentially other 

parties. 

So let us talk, see if we can narrow the issues, talk 

about witnesses, talk about potential stipulated issues of 

fact. What are -- and, Your Honor, I'm just a little bit spitballing here, but the fact of the matter is is that there are 

twenty-odd fires here.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: Do we need to have evidence on all of 

those fires? I'm not taking a position one way or another, but 

I think I have ideas, and I'm sure other counsel have ideas --

THE COURT: Well, that's --

MR. MCCALLEN: -- that we can streamline this.

THE COURT: -- that comes under talk. 

MR. MCCALLEN: Right. So send us back and talk. Let 

us see if we can -- let's see if we can narrow the divide 

between where the parties are in terms of timing, scope; and 

then we can come back to Your Honor, solely to talk about that 

and what the issues for the proceeding --

THE COURT: Well, one --

MR. MCCALLEN: -- would be.

THE COURT: What I said earlier, if you heard me, that 

regardless of what I do on the other motions, I expect we'd 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 157

of 341
158

PG&E Corp., 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

have another hearing fairly soon on estimation, whatever. And

so you've, in effect, repeated the same thing. So between 

today and whenever that other hearing is, there's going to be 

some talk. I hope I --

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: -- don't have to order it, but I will 

order it if I have to.

MR. MCCALLEN: So then let me address then, the two --

THE COURT: The other two.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- the two phases that they say should 

happen outside of this talking process and coming back, because 

they say, all right, we'll talk, but let's do IC and let's do 

Tubbs first, is their view. 

So, Your Honor, three infirmities with what they 

propose. The first is that this plan would have this Court 

adjudicating two of the three phrases by October and in doing 

so, adjudicating -- and if the debtors get their way --

affecting disallowing billions of dollars of claims before the 

bar date.

THE COURT: I don't think that's true. I thought they 

wanted the inverse-condemnation thing done, but I -- look, I 

got you. I think the three-week window overlaps the bar date, 

but that window isn't going to work for a variety of reasons, 

but that doesn't mean there isn't --

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 158

of 341
159

PG&E Corp., 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: -- some alternative.

MR. MCCALLEN: Just to --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- be specific --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- they propose, I believe, October 7th 

for the start of the Tubbs trial --

THE COURT: Right. Yes.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- lasting three weeks, which would go 

right up until the bar date.

THE COURT: Yeah. Yeah, I understand.

MR. MCCALLEN: And they say, if they get their way, 

you will estimate those claims at zero. That's effectively 

disallowing those claims.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, I don't -- I didn't -- I 

mean, an advocate would say, I'm going to win my case; but I 

didn't see that they are predicting zero, but maybe they are. 

Maybe -- I just look at the schedule. Go ahead with your 

point.

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, you can also ask Mr. Orsini's 

prediction on that one.

THE COURT: Well, sure. I mean, any good lawyer's --

MR. MCCALLEN: But I think that's certainly what 

they're arguing for.

THE COURT: -- going to say, I'm going to win my case, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 159

of 341
160

PG&E Corp., 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

not, I'm going to lose my case.

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: But --

MR. MCCALLEN: But to come back, Your Honor, this is 

unprecedented as far as I'm aware. I've looked at the case; 

the debtors cite one case. They cite the Garlock case from the 

Western District of North Carolina, and in that decision, the 

court is clear that it was estimating solely for the purposes 

of plan feasibility, and the court was equally clear that they 

were not allowing or disallowing any claims on the basis of 

those proceedings.

And as I said, here, in contrast, they are seeking to 

adjudicate the merits of billions of dollars of claims before 

the date by which this Court previously ordered those parties 

had to come to the court to be heard. So it's a little bit 

of -- we're obviously -- this case is creating a lot of 

situations that many people have not dealt with before in their 

career, so I appreciate that that --

THE COURT: I think every one of us, probably.

MR. MCCALLEN: So I appreciate that the law is 

sometimes not going to provide us direct answers, but it has 

to, obviously, guide our decisions.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: And I think from a prudential 

perspective, Your Honor, when you start thinking about the June 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 160

of 341
161

PG&E Corp., 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

2020 deadline we have, and appellate risk, and what a decision 

from the district court or the Ninth Circuit overturning a 

particular decision in this case, the effect it could have on 

that time line, the cost benefits just don't make sense. 

There's no sense to run the risk of adjudicating those claims 

before the bar date, when if --

THE COURT: And I think you're preaching to the choir 

here.

MR. MCCALLEN: Okay. 

THE COURT: I'm not -- I thought it was clear in my 

discussion with Mr. Julian, but the bar date is important, but 

that doesn't mean I'm persuaded that we start the trial the day 

after, either.

MR. MCCALLEN: Of course.

THE COURT: Because that's a kind of pretend due 

process --

MR. MCCALLEN: Of course.

THE COURT: -- to tell somebody on the last day your 

claim is filed that the next day your process is being denied 

you.

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure. Let me move forward to what 

it --

THE COURT: It actually just -- it seems to me what it 

does is, it puts an outer limit on the number of claimants, 

leaving aside any who might have the benefit of late-filed 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 161

of 341
162

PG&E Corp., 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

claim. And we have a very liberal rule in the Ninth Circuit 

for late-filed claims, so it's entirely possible that the bar 

date will have some exceptions built into it. But that's for 

another day, and that's not the estimation problem.

MR. MCCALLEN: So then let me move on then, Your 

Honor, to what I think is, from my perspective, problem number 

one with the debtor's proposal, which is the debtors want the 

Court to disentangle or to try to disentangle Tubbs from the 

other fires. And they say, do Tubbs first in phase 2, and then 

in phase 3, come back and do all of the other fires, basically 

everything that's left over after inverse condemnation and the 

Tubbs issues.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, is that right? If PG&E goes 

and loses its position in Tubbs by a determination that it was 

negligent, isn't there still that we then add Tubbs to the mix 

for all the fires that are part of phase 3? 

I mean, I didn't understand that their proposal was 

somehow we were finished with Tubbs if we -- in phase 2; I 

mean, maybe if PG&E wins that's one thing, but --

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: -- not if they lose.

MR. MCCALLEN: So I think damages, under their 

proposal, for all fires is in phase 3.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. MCCALLEN: Two issues on Tubbs --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 162

of 341
163

PG&E Corp., 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: That's what I thought, too.

MR. MCCALLEN: Yeah. Two Tubbs issues, though --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- are going to be heard in isolation. 

Causation, that is what is the cause of the Tubbs fire, which 

is a very significant issue --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- and then two is going to be 

negligence. Was there evidence -- if we can prove that PG&E 

caused the fire, are we also able to prove that they were 

negligent in causing the fire? Those two issues are both going 

to be heard in the standalone phase 2; that's my understanding.

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. MCCALLEN: Um-hum.

THE COURT: Right. That's what I thought. And not 

the number of dollars that any particular -- or in the 

aggregate all the Tubbs victims --

MR. MCCALLEN: Correct.

THE COURT: -- suffered.

MR. MCCALLEN: Correct. But my point is a slightly 

different one, Your Honor, which is that the negligence issue 

which is going to touch on Tubbs is going to be very closely 

related to the negligence evidence that the court would hear 

with respect to non-Tubbs fires -- the twenty-odd fires that 

aren't Tubbs.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 163

of 341
164

PG&E Corp., 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 here's the situation I'm trying to avoid, Your 

Honor. Let's just use the debtor's dates because they threw 

them out there. There's a Tubbs trial, phase 2, that starts in 

October. Evidence is presented about the cause of that fire, 

and evidence is presented about PG&E's negligence with respect 

to that fire.

Let's say the Court hears that evidence, and it's 

going to involve issues like vegetation management: did PG&E 

satisfy their standard of care in terms of taking care of 

vegetation in and around the origin point of the fire? Or were 

they negligent in doing so, failing to remove diseased trees, 

failing to take down trees or to cut around power lines, issues 

like that.

That would all be heard under the debtor's proposal by 

you alone with respect to Tubbs only, in phase 2.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: Then, a couple months later, we'll come 

back as part of phase 3, and among the issues to be heard would 

be negligence with respect to all of the other fires, what I 

call the systemic negligence at PG&E. And so not only is it 

inefficient, Your Honor, to hear evidence related to negligence 

solely as to Tubbs in a standalone phase and then to hear it 

again later -- there's going to be overlap -- it's not only 

negligent, but it's also potentially problematic, because what 

they're trying to do, Your Honor, is they're trying to get you 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 164

of 341
165

PG&E Corp., 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

to make a decision about negligence-related issues with only 

certain of the facts in front of you.

You could decide the negligence issue -- say you 

decided for PG&E; you hear the negligence related to Tubbs, and 

you say I don't think there's sufficient evidence of negligence 

here, so I'm not going to find negligence on Tubbs.

THE COURT: It sounds to me like you're leading up to 

we got to put all the negligence issues together.

MR. MCCALLEN: We got to put all of these issues 

together.

THE COURT: Well, yeah, and I think that's in your 

papers, too.

MR. MCCALLEN: Exactly, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I think your argument, which I did read --

I read a lot of things; I just can't keep all of it straight --

is do one trial, not three.

MR. MCCALLEN: Absolutely, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And I don't imagine you feel quite the 

same way about the legal question on inverse condemnation?

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, actually I think it should go 

to --

THE COURT: Because that's not a trial; that's a legal 

argument.

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, so a couple of things on that, 

Your Honor, because I'm not sure that I actually agree with 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 165

of 341
166

PG&E Corp., 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

everything that's been said about inverse condemnation. 

So I'm not going to repeat Mr. Julian's arguments on 

the legal points. We have them in front of Your Honor; we 

think the law is clear. And I heard what Your Honor said, was, 

all the more reason to do it standalone up front.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: But there's a couple other 

considerations that I think Your Honor should think about. 

The first couple, again, are prudential issues. I 

think the most significant from my perspective is no one -- I 

don't think anybody's contesting at this point that the law in 

California is pretty well settled; it is what it is. And so 

what the debtors are asking Your Honor to do is to determine 

quickly, up front, the extent to which you think the California 

Supreme Court, if faced with this issue, would rule in their 

favor. 

And I would suggest, respectfully, Your Honor, that in 

a situation like this where your decision is going to have --

is going to be looked to by parties even outside of the 

bankruptcy context --

THE COURT: Yes, I know.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- one should exercise caution before 

entering into the project that the debtors want to. And my 

point is simply this: there are many things that could happen 

between now and early October when they have you hear this 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 166

of 341
167

PG&E Corp., 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

issue, and between that point and January or February or 

whatever the date the Court chooses for a final hearing in this 

case, there's a lot of things that could happen which could 

mean that Your Honor doesn't haven't to hear that issue.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. MCCALLEN: Doesn't have to decide that issue.

THE COURT: Well, sure. I mean, the obvious one is 

consensual resolution. And maybe there's --

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: -- some other ones that I'm not --

MR. MCCALLEN: Exactly.

THE COURT: -- thinking about.

MR. MCCALLEN: And so there's really not -- and so 

then the question becomes, all right, well, it's clear it'd be 

better not to have to reach the issue. So --

THE COURT: Yeah, but --

MR. MCCALLEN: -- what do we gain by reaching it?

THE COURT: -- as you know, one of the best settlement 

tools is a trial date, so -- another great settlement tool is a 

dispositive motion date. Another great one is the possibility 

of competing plans.

MR. MCCALLEN: Yeah, Your Honor, but they're cherrypicking issues here that they think are beneficial to their 

case to have them heard --

THE COURT: Okay. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 167

of 341
168

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. MCCALLEN: -- up front as opposed to other issues 

that could be presented from the other side.

THE COURT: I'm going to cut you off again. Not that 

I don't want to hear from you, but to me, this is the kind of 

argument that gets after the talk session and at the next 

session when the only order of business is how do I go about 

this estimation process? And if the parties consent and come 

to a consensual procedural agreement that you're advocating, 

I'm not going to second-guess them. If you're still 

advocating, let's do it together, I'll listen to the arguments 

and do it. 

And I mean, to some extent, I'm -- maybe this isn't 

what Mr. Julian wanted, but this discussion today on that issue 

is a preview for what needs to be then focused more 

specifically at the next hearing to say, okay -- because it 

gets to the question of which judge and all of the other points 

that I've asked --

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: -- you to think about. And meanwhile, I'm 

thinking about, what do I do if there is no consent, as I 

suggested. And so I have to focus on what comes next. 

So your suggestion goes into the hopper, but I want it 

to go into the colloquy that you have with the other two 

significant players.

MR. MCCALLEN: Of course, Your Honor. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 168

of 341
169

PG&E Corp., 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: Yeah.

MR. MCCALLEN: If that's the case, and if the next 

step from here is to go and talk about the next step, then I 

can cede the podium, and we'll --

THE COURT: Well, when you think about it in terms of 

preparing and reading these briefs, it's just -- every time I 

read something, there's a new wrinkle to it. So I mean, I 

didn't have occasion to even drill down on these questions of 

some of these issues until days ago, so --

MR. MCCALLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: -- it just -- and I can't keep up with it. 

But I'm happy to have the target keep moving because maybe 

people come to a resolution of it. 

So let me -- so if you're okay, we'll hold it at that. 

I mean, I want you to feel comfortable, and I hope Mr. Julian 

got the message: you're not going to go out of here today 

with, okay, the estimation trial starts on October 7th --

MR. MCCALLEN: Um-hum. And that --

THE COURT: -- and the three-week trial that Mr. 

Orsini wants starts whatever date he suggested. It's just not 

going to happen. 

So this is more like a pre-trial that we'd be having, 

except now we're going to -- it's like a pre-trial of our 

estimation hearing. 

And seriously, we're back to the question of, all 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 169

of 341
170

PG&E Corp., 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

right, if I'm going to be making a recommendation to the 

district court, I have to tell the district judge what I'm 

recommending, so -- okay.

MR. MCCALLEN: Understood, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MCCALLEN: Thank you very much.

THE COURT: I'll tell you what, I had wonderful ideas 

about timing. I'd like to hear the other counsel who want to 

be heard on the TCC side. 

And, Mr. Orsini, unless you think it would be a 

miscarriage of justice, I think I'll then declare the 

lunchbreak, and then when we resume, I'll let you make your 

closing argument, and then we'll turn directly to the relief 

from stay.

Let me hear from the counsel that want to be heard in 

opposition to the motion first, and then we're going to take 

our break.

MR. MARSHACK: Thank you, Your Honor. Richard 

Marshack, Marshack Hayes. I represent -- I'm counsel with Mr. 

Singleton. 

THE COURT: Yeah. 

MR. MARSHACK: And we represent 5,200 victims --

THE COURT: I know the background. I know who you 

are. 

MR. MARSHACK: Thank you. I'll make my points brief, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 170

of 341
171

PG&E Corp., 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 Mr. Singleton will take over. He's my Mr. Pitre, if 

you will. 

Judge, preliminary comment. It's an absolute pleasure 

to watch how hard this Court is working to get it right. We 

believe that 502 is a wonderful, wonderful tool under the right 

circumstances. We don't have the right circumstances here, 

Your Honor. This Court should not grant the motion to 

estimate. 

This would be a --

THE COURT: Okay. That's a new approach. 

MR. MARSHACK: The -- if we --

THE COURT: I don't think I have a choice, but you 

tell me --

MR. MARSHACK: I understand it. If we didn't have 

a -- and we'll address that. If -- I think the Court 

absolutely does have a choice, but if --

THE COURT: Well, the word "shall" is in the statute. 

But go ahead, make your point. 

MR. MARSHACK: Well, I believe the TCC argued, if I 

read their brief correctly, that we should do estimation. 

THE COURT: Go ahead. Thank you. What do you want me 

to say? I mean, I've read as much as I can, Mr. Marshack. 

Just tell me what you believe I should do. 

MR. MARSHACK: If the Court did not have a June 30th 

deadline, then we could do justice. Then there could be a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 171

of 341
172

PG&E Corp., 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

very, very good estimation trial. But for some reason, we're 

living under a June 30th deadline, and we are treating that as 

an absolute. And, Your Honor, you can't not take AB-1054 and 

say because of 1054, we're going to abrogate due process. We 

can't do that. We can't let the state legislature rewrite the 

laws of due process. 

We have to prove causation in twenty-one fires. And 

you talked about, what does that evidence --

THE COURT: Well, but look, I had the same discussion 

with Mr. Pitre and Mr. Kelly; what you have to prove maybe 

isn't the kind of proof that you would prove if you were in a 

state court. 

MR. MARSHACK: And Mr. Singleton addressed that issue 

but what Mr. Pitre said and what Mr. Julian said was, you just 

can't have one witness, you can't have two witnesses. 

THE COURT: Well, but that's -- who says what the 

rules are? I mean, I understand your point and I'm not going 

to pretend that it isn't important, but you know what, it --

you may -- there may be certain things that are completely 

antithetical to what you gentlemen, as state-court litigators, 

are used to. Because as I said -- I think I got an 

acknowledgment on the other side -- this 502 guy doesn't exist 

out in -- outside the bankruptcy world. 

MR. MARSHACK: And --

THE COURT: And so -- but we're stuck with it unless 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 172

of 341
173

PG&E Corp., 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

there's a legal argument that I should ignore it. But, Mr. 

Marshack, what you're telling me, I think, is just put 502 on 

the table -- on the side; let -- I presume what you're then 

going to say, let relief of stay go forward, and 1054 be 

damned. If they get the problem solved, fine; if not, that's 

okay too. 

MR. MARSHACK: I am saying that --

THE COURT: But I'm not ready to do that. 

MR. MARSHACK: I am saying it. I'm saying there are 

alternatives that Mr. Singleton will talk about. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. MARSHACK: But what I'm really saying is, there's 

an overriding due-process issue here, and I'll just give you 

one example. 

THE COURT: But --

MR. MARSHACK: Discovery. 

THE COURT: -- you're -- go ahead. Make the --

MR. MARSHACK: Discovery. Does anybody in this 

courtroom really think that PG&E is going to comply and give us 

everything we need by the estimation trial date? Nobody in 

this courtroom believes that.

THE COURT: No. No. But I think that they're going 

to comply and give them -- give you everything I order them to 

do, or else they won't have their case. And I need help from 

you and the others to tell me what to order. But it isn't --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 173

of 341
174

PG&E Corp., 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 isn't -- we're not pretending we're in superior court. 

So, Mr. Singleton, you seem to be -- the two of you 

together --

MR. SINGLETON: Right. 

THE COURT: -- I -- we want you both, but make your 

pitch, please. 

MR. SINGLETON: Thank you, Your Honor. And I don't 

want to delay everybody from lunch. Let me --

THE COURT: No. That's okay. 

MR. SINGLETON: Okay. 

THE COURT: I just -- I want to get to what I have to 

deal with here. 

MR. SINGLETON: Understood. I think Mr. Kelly and Mr. 

Pitre touched on all the salient points, and they did it very 

emphatically. And I want to just address an issue that I think 

may be lost in the mix here.

The Court absolutely has the right, as we understand, 

under the estimation procedures to make it a truncated 

procedure. So we don't have to have -- and I know Mr. Kelly 

and Mr. Pitre understand this -- we don't have to have the same 

type of proof that we would have to have in superior court. 

What I think bothers us is that we don't have the discovery 

that we need even to put on the truncated --

THE COURT: No, I know, and I've heard that before. 

MR. SINGLETON: Exactly. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 174

of 341
175

PG&E Corp., 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: I've heard it from several of you. And I 

got the message. 

MR. SINGLETON: Understood. Right. But here's the 

issue that I think is concerning me and I think is concerning 

everyone. We cannot be ready for estimation trials, even if 

they're in a truncated form, on negligence on twenty-four 

fires, which is what PG&E says is on the table, by June 30, 

2020. 

THE COURT: Well, then why don't we just call it a 

day? I mean, I have no option, sir. I don't have an option. 

Unless -- if this is a motion to table the estimation, you can 

make it, but I'm not going to grant it because I believe that 

the statute requires me to do my best.

Now, let me say that if for some reason, whether it's 

through mischief or just the magnitude of the problem, we can't 

meet that deadline, then that's unfortunate. But I said before 

at a prior hearing, I don't know if you were here, I am 

committed, as long as I am able to to make sure that the 

bankruptcy process doesn't slow the system down.

So as the person in charge of the bankruptcy process, 

I'm pushing forward on the estimation in the best way I can 

until I reach the inevitable or in -- reluctant conclusion that 

it can't be done. And I haven't -- I'm not there yet. 

MR. SINGLETON: And, Your Honor, I think this is what 

I would propose. Obviously, 502(c) says "shall", but it also 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 175

of 341
176

PG&E Corp., 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

says, undue delay. And I think that's the key here, is what 

does undue delay mean in this context? 

THE COURT: And what do you say it means? 

MR. SINGLETON: Well, for example, when I had the 

opportunity to question the CFO of PG&E under oath at the 

creditor's meeting, I asked him, how long it would be? And he 

said, it will be three to five years before we liquidate these 

cases. 

THE COURT: And isn't that undue delay? Would you 

like to tell your clients that they're going to get a -- their 

first payment in five years? 

MR. SINGLETON: Well, I wouldn't like to tell them 

five years, but I --

THE COURT: Well, that's what you're telling them. 

MR. SINGLETON: Well, I -- respectfully, Your Honor, 

what I'm saying is on the one hand we have PG&E now arguing 

it's got to be ten months. And on the other hand --

THE COURT: No. The California legislature said it, 

and you're the first person to come to the podium that sort of 

implies that maybe we should just ignore that deadline. 

MR. SINGLETON: Your Honor, I'm not --

THE COURT: And I'm not with you on that point. 

MR. SINGLETON: And I'm not saying we should ignore 

it. What I'm saying is this. PG&E's argument, with all due 

respect, is that because we have this 1054 bill which gives 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 176

of 341
177

PG&E Corp., 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

them a 10.5-billion-dollar gift from the rate payers, we have 

to cancel or abrogate due process for the victims. And --

THE COURT: Mr. Singleton, you're not making any 

points with me. I -- my job is to apply due process, but I'm 

following 502 until I'm told -- until I figure out it can't be 

done. I'm just not going to do it. 

MR. SINGLETON: Your Honor, all I'm saying is this. 

If we set out a time table for realistic deadlines, and that 

means that some of the negligence trials would have to take 

place after June 30, 2020, then the burden shifts. Now rather 

than the wildfire victims getting the short end of the stick 

and having due process abrogated, PG&E has to decide whether or 

not they want to contest negligence in fires where everybody 

knows they're negligent. 

THE COURT: I understand. And I'm telling you, you're 

just wasting my time and yours. I am not going to put this 

case on the back burner, until all these trials go on their 

way. I'm going to go forward with the 502 process, either in 

parallel with the request that's been made for relief on Tubbs 

or not, until I reach the conclusion, or I'm told by a higher 

court, that it's just not going to happen. And if I have to 

make the decision that the bankruptcy component of this complex 

reorganization is not going to be able to live up to the 

statutory deadline, then I'll take the consequences. But I'm 

not there on August 14th. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 177

of 341
178

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. SINGLETON: Understood, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. SINGLETON: And really, that's all we're saying --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. SINGLETON: -- is that rather than setting a short 

time line as PG&E has requested, it will take us a good six to 

nine months, if not longer, to get the discovery we need. So 

we would like the estimation trial later on --

THE COURT: I think you're doing the same thing that I 

said at the outset. I don't mean to offend --

MR. SINGLETON: Sure. 

THE COURT: -- or be insulting to lawyers who make 

their living successfully outside of the bankruptcy court. 

We're here now. 

MR. SINGLETON: Understood. 

THE COURT: And the rules are different. And the 

attitude is different. And the mindset is different. And 

hopefully, the adherence to due process is not different. But 

it's a different rule. 

MR. SINGLETON: Understood, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And so let's not --

MR. SINGLETON: I'll move on. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. SINGLETON: The other issue that I wanted to 

address, which -- Your Honor asked a logistical question. I 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 178

of 341
179

PG&E Corp., 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

can answer it for you. What happens if the Court grants the 

relief from stay logistically? 

What would happen is as soon as that case was 

transferred over to superior court, we would get a date from 

the clerk to file --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SINGLETON: -- the motion for preference in trial 

setting. That typically takes about twenty-one to twenty-eight 

days. When that is heard, the judge enters an order and the 

trial must take place within 120 days. So realistically, that 

would be heard next month. The trial would happen in January. 

THE COURT: And it would grant it, just when it's 

submitted? There'd be no opposition? 

MR. SINGLETON: Typically --

THE COURT: Look, again, I don't know why we're doing 

this. You didn't seem to --

MR. SINGLETON: Okay. 

THE COURT: -- get the message. This is really about 

relief from stay. I raised the question before. We start with 

the record showing that there is already in place a preference 

order dealing with the Atlas fire. Now, I'm sure Judge Karnow 

or whatever judge makes the decision will be told why that's 

not right. 

But I am not turning this into another version of -- I 

mean, let me rephrase that. I asked for advice and I'll listen 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 179

of 341
180

PG&E Corp., 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

to your suggestion as to what you think the time frame will be 

if I grant a relief from stay. But I'd rather we defer that 

later. So --

MR. SINGLETON: That's fine. 

THE COURT: -- Mr. Singleton, you've made the pitch 

that you believe I should defer and delay 502 process. I am 

not going to do that. I'm going to stick with what I told all 

the other parties earlier; I'm planning to -- whether there are 

competing plans and whether there are grants for relief from 

stay, there is still going to be a scheduling of an estimation, 

sooner rather than later. 

You're welcome to share your views with the counsel. 

You heard Mr. McCallen suggest that he wants people to talk. I 

hope they'll invite you to talk as a courtesy, if nothing else. 

And I will listen to your views when we next convene to talk 

about how is this trial going to go forward --

MR. SINGLETON: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: -- or the estimation hearing.

Okay. Thank you. 

MR. MARSHACK: Thank you, Your Honor. And one more 

point is, should the Court decide to -- the Court's going to go 

forward with an estimation trial. Should they do so, I'd like 

the Court to keep in mind who gets to participate. The SLF 

group has 5,200 claimants and they would like to participate 

actively at the trial. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 180

of 341
181

PG&E Corp., 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: Yeah, I haven't even thought about that. 

The debtor made the motion. We'll -- anybody who -- when I 

determine when there'll be, then what I'll call the pre-trial 

or the scheduling on the 502 estimation, you're certainly 

welcome to participate and be heard. 

MR. MARSHACK: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

Mr. Pascuzzi, have you been standing this whole time 

or did you get a seat? 

MR. PASCUZZI: No, Your Honor. I was hoping to get up 

here quickly. Paul Pascuzzi, Felderstein Fitzgerald Willoughby 

Pascuzzi & Rios. Your Honor, we're co-counsel with the 

California Attorney General's Office. 

We filed a response. The state agencies listed it at 

docket 3421 --

THE COURT: Yeah. But you're already focusing on 

liquidate it or not, right? 

MR. PASCUZZI: Yes, Your Honor. It's just an issue 

that's going to have to be addressed in connection with the 

process, whether these agencies with statutory based claims for 

the most part are --

THE COURT: But how -- I mean, yeah, I don't know 

how -- I was interested in the argument, but I mean, what do 

you want to do? What should I do? 

MR. PASCUZZI: Your Honor, you don't have to do 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 181

of 341
182

PG&E Corp., 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

anything right now. It's part of what will occur, I think, as 

the process goes forward. This will be an issue that will have 

to be addressed. 

THE COURT: Yeah, but in terms of scheduling, you 

heard Mr. Singleton say that he wants to be there when we have 

this estimation. I presume you want to be there if someone is 

going to be estimating some of your clients' claims? 

MR. PASCUZZI: Right. 

THE COURT: And if the other side says, sure, we owe 

the department of such and such, X dollars, there's nothing to 

talk about. These are your figures. 

MR. PASCUZZI: Right, Your Honor. And I think the 

issue will be when the claims are filed, to determine whether 

they are in fact subject to estimation under 502(c) as 

unliquidated. 

THE COURT: But don't we start by looking at the 

claim? 

MR. PASCUZZI: Right. Which hasn't been filed yet. 

THE COURT: And if the claim says, we suffered a fire 

and we haven't calculated the damage, that's sort of 

unliquidated to me. 

MR. PASCUZZI: And I don't think they will. 

THE COURT: You're too experienced of a bankruptcy 

lawyer to know the difference between unliquidated and 

contingent. So it's not contingent and it may be disputed, but 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 182

of 341
183

PG&E Corp., 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

that's not the test either. 

MR. PASCUZZI: Right. 

THE COURT: So unliquidated is a pretty easy term to 

me. 

MR. PASCUZZI: Understood, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. PASCUZZI: And we raise the issue and the debtor's 

papers said -- they contended they were unliquidated and 

subject to estimation. I'm just telling the Court, that's 

going to be an issue that we'll have to deal with as part of 

this. 

THE COURT: It seems to me that this is kind of 

another sub-battle that's not unlike the thing that I had a 

discussion with Mr. Julian about. That it could -- if we had 

to do it, we could actually have a summary judgment motion to 

determine whether the claim is liquidated or unliquidated. It 

would be kind of an interlocutory order, but it -- I have a lot 

of trouble wondering how there would be any doubt about it, one 

or the other, between experienced counsel. So --

MR. PASCUZZI: Your Honor, if you look at CAL FIRE's 

claims, they're fire suppression, cost reimbursements, they're 

statutory, they're completely distinguishable from the types of 

claims that the tort committee constituents have. So --

THE COURT: Right. Right. I'm getting it and --

MR. PASCUZZI: -- then they will be, you know, to-theCase: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 183

of 341
184

PG&E Corp., 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

penny calculated. So --

THE COURT: But if they're to the penny, they don't 

seem unliquidated. 

MR. PASCUZZI: Exactly. That's our point, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And if the debtor wants to dispute them, 

they can file a claim objection. 

MR. PASCUZZI: Exactly. 

THE COURT: And if the debtor wants me to estimate 

them -- well, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. 

MR. PASCUZZI: Exactly, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Mr. Tredinnick, you're going to tell me to 

deal with the inverse condemnation -- oh, are you done? 

MR. PASCUZZI: No, I'm not. Just the only other part 

was the --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. PASCUZZI: -- CAL FIRE discovery issue. I raised 

it last time at our last hearing about discovery. There's 

going to need to be coordination regarding discovery on CAL 

FIRE. So we're here --

THE COURT: Well, I mean, did you make any progress? 

You haven't complained about anything? 

MR. PASCUZZI: No, no, Your Honor. I just -- we're 

anticipating that's going to be a big issue with a lot of 

parties with -- seeking a lot of information. And we're here 

to work in good faith on that, at that stage of the process, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 184

of 341
185

PG&E Corp., 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

Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. I got it. 

MR. PASCUZZI: Thank you. 

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. Tredinnick, I read your briefs. You want to be 

heard on the inverse condemnation? 

MR. TREDINNICK: Yes, Your Honor. Edward Tredinnick, 

Greene Radovsky, on behalf of the City and County of San 

Francisco. 

I'll keep it simple. Inverse condemnation is 

important to the City. We feel like we should be able to have 

a say in --

THE COURT: That isn't -- do you agree with Mr. Julian 

and the discussion we had? I mean, is it something that could 

be just dealt with by a motion? 

MR. TREDINNICK: I agree. 

THE COURT: And obviously you're a proponent of --

it's alive and well --

MR. TREDINNICK: Yeah. 

THE COURT: -- so the simple solution to me would be 

to coordinate with Mr. Julian and -- I mean, I haven't decided 

what to do, but I'm certainly going to presume that the right 

thing to do is tee it up, perhaps after the bar date as 

suggested, and have a briefing schedule and get on with it. 

MR. TREDINNICK: I don't think we have any quarrel 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 185

of 341
186

PG&E Corp., 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 that just as long as we can be involved in that process. 

Obviously, we would coordinate with the tort-claims committee, 

if that's the appropriate way to go. 

THE COURT: Well --

MR. TREDINNICK: We don't want to add any more papers

to the process. 

THE COURT: I think you have to just make sure Mr. 

Orsini or one of the lawyers working with him knows your 

number. So that -- because they're the moving party, they want 

the estimation. They suggested phase 1, and it's not worth 

spending a lot of time saying when. If my comments aren't 

already pretty clear, I think I am of the view it has to be 

after the bar date, but that's not a huge difference. And the 

other side can argue to me why it should be earlier, but I'm 

not -- I'm not likely to agree with them.

But what I would anticipate would be -- well, I'll 

just make it clear. Mr. Orsini, when we talk about scheduling, 

make sure Mr. Tredinnick and anybody else who's identified as a 

prospective opponent on this legal question is in the 

discussion. 

And, Mr. Tredinnick, my message to you is, make sure 

you coordinate your position with Mr. Julian or anyone else so 

the court judge doesn't read the same brief twice. One brief 

signed by two good lawyers is better than two briefs signed by

the same two lawyers that aren't twice as good or double 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 186

of 341
187

PG&E Corp., 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

better. Okay? 

MR. TREDINNICK: Message received. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. TREDINNICK: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Mr. Orsini, can you live with a break or 

do you want to have your closing now and --

MR. ORSINI: I'll try to make this easy, Your Honor. 

Subject to any questions from the Court, we have nothing 

further to add on this motion. I understand the Court's point 

that there will be further discussions about scheduling, but 

we'd ask that the Court enter an order setting forth that 

estimation will proceed so that we could have those 

conversations and come back. 

THE COURT: Well, I mean, setting an order that says 

estimation will proceed, if there's some magic to having it by 

order -- I hope that if I recite, then I expect the principal 

counsel to meet and confer and be ready to talk about 

scheduling the specifics of the estimation and -- at the next 

hearing. 

And look, you have to do whatever you can do to make 

sure that at the next hearing, I don't hear this repeated, 

repeated objection to your side providing discovery. I know 

that you said you have. And again, I'm not going to criticize 

the state-court lawyers for forgetting this isn't pre-trial in 

a superior-court trial; it's pre-trial if you will, in an 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 187

of 341
188

PG&E Corp., 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

estimation proceeding. But they have to have the benefit of 

discovery, particularly on these issues that you're not 

inclined to give. Now, you might want to go back and decide 

whether you're going to give up on some of these issues, and 

I'm not going to tell you how to represent your client; you 

know how to do it. So okay. With that -- 

MR. ORSINI: I understand your point on that, Your 

Honor. I think as I made clear last week when we were on the 

phone, we're amenable to discovery and we're ready to sit down 

and have that plan put in place. 

THE COURT: Yeah. 

I didn't laugh. 

No, but I --

MR. ORSINI: Those who were laughing forget the fact 

that they already have seven million pages of discovery. 

THE COURT: No. No. 

MR. ORSINI: And that they've had the opportunity to 

make many inspections, but --

THE COURT: Let's not go on to that. What I'm doing 

is saying that in the near future, and I define "near" to be in 

the next few days or not much more than that, I will have a 

hearing where the primary focus will be scheduling the 

estimation. 

Now, in fairness, I haven't decided what that 

includes. You've heard my view about teeing up the pure legal 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 188

of 341
189

PG&E Corp., 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

question and timing, and that shouldn't be a very difficult to 

do. And I'll assume, notwithstanding Mr. Julian's optimism, 

you still believe you can make a good-faith, credible argument 

to the contrary. So we'll leave it at that.

And you've heard Mr. McCallen's suggestion that maybe 

we got to take the Tubbs piece of phase 2 and make it part of 

phase 3. That's open for discussion.

Oh, one other thing that I didn't mention to any of 

you today. There was an ex parte motion from the TCC about 

settling on -- setting a hearing on this issue of the jury 

entitlement and the preservation, and you opposed that motion.

I am not going to act on it. I'm going to take it up 

at the next hearing to see if there's really an issue. It 

seemed to me there is no issue. You conceded there's no issue 

on the question of filling out questionnaires. So that 

suggests to me that maybe you still believe that filing a claim 

triggers some sort of consequence. I don't know what's left. 

My point is that at the scheduling hearing when we are 

scheduling all these other things, I want to schedule whether 

anybody still really has an argument about the right. 

But, Mr. Julian, there's two sides to this. I think 

the motion that you filed cites 28 U.S.C. 1411 but I think the 

discussion we all had this morning suggests that it's sort of 

superseded by the estimation process, depending -- and again, 

this is not the judicial officer question. It's the way the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 189

of 341
190

PG&E Corp., 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

section works and the way the case law tells us.

So I'll leave it at that. I don't need any colloquy 

about it. Be prepared to tell me what's ripe for adjudication 

on that issue, if there's anything left to be ripe about.

I'll see you at 2:30. 

MR. ORSINI: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And we'll deal with the relief from stay 

motions.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. 

THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. 

(Recess from 1:10 p.m., until 2:37 p.m.)

THE CLERK: All rise. 

THE COURT: My courtroom deputy didn't think I was 

coming in; she thought I'd left. Please be seated. 

Let me go through a couple minor scheduling items that 

I kind of thought about. I said as we broke that I'm going 

to -- no matter what I do with the other motions, for 

estimation we're going to go to a status conference and so on. 

So I'm planning on setting that for two weeks from yesterday, 

one our regular days; that's August 27th at 9:30. 

And for calendaring purposes, whether we call it the 

continued hearing on the estimation or a status conference, 

it's to talk about the things that are going to take place at 

the estimation process. 

And so everything is still up for discussion. Phase 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 190

of 341
191

PG&E Corp., 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

1, whether it's three phases, whether it's, as Mr. McCallen 

proposed, one phase; whether we bifurcate it different ways and 

so on and whether or not there's relief from stay. 

And I'm also going to set, on that same calendar, the 

27th at 9:30, a hearing, if necessary, on what we'll call the 

TCC motion regarding the preservation of jury-trial rights. I 

have a feeling that is going to be a nonissue, but who knows. 

And so what I'm going to ask is no later than one week prior, 

which is the 20th, that I get simultaneous briefs from the 

debtors and the TCC. I don't think I need any other briefs, 

but if anybody else wants to weigh in, I'll come to that. And 

I want to limit the pages for that one because it's a narrow 

issue. So no more than ten pages. Even that's not very 

limiting. 

But one of the things that I understand, many of you 

have to -- and are trained in good practice, I guess, is to 

reinvent all the things. I can remember in the first case, 

those of you that were with us in the first case, PG&E suffered 

so many abuses, in its mind, at the hands of Enron and some of 

the other big companies that every single brief opened with 

about an eight-page dissertation on the evil empire and all the 

bad things that have been done to the debtor. 

So I finally asked everybody to put it all into a 

footnote referencing some of their prior dockets, so I didn't 

have to read the same eight pages all over again. So at some 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 191

of 341
192

PG&E Corp., 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

point, I might do that. And the same thing here; you don't 

have to tell me this case was filed on the date it was filed, 

and that the debtors in possession, and when the committees 

were appointed. But that's that. 

I'd like, on the 19th, which is a week from today, 

right? If I've got my dates right. Oh, not it's not.

IN UNISON: No.

THE COURT: No, it's not. No, it's not. It's Monday 

the 19th. 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's Monday.

THE COURT: I'd like counsel for the creditor's 

committee -- and again I made it clear is I didn't designate 

any particular counsel, but that's the date I'd like a brief 

statement placed on the docket that the two fire group 

committees and the debtors have agreed that all matters can be 

decided by the bankruptcy judge, or there has not been a 

unanimity on that issue, without disclosing where people were 

on that subject. 

I left the bench yesterday, and then today at midday, 

assuming that perhaps even by the end of today, I would be able 

to announce a ruling on the two exclusivity motions and the two 

relief from stays. That's just not something I can do anymore. 

So I will tell you that I intend to issue a short, 

written ruling on those four motions, the two exclusivity 

motions and the two relief from stay motions, without 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 192

of 341
193

PG&E Corp., 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

elaboration, but at least try to state in -- succinctly my 

reasoning. My goal is to attempt to get that out by Friday. 

More likely, it might be Monday; that's my deadline. 

And so I -- to the extent that members of the media 

have been following, and I read in the paper I'm supposed to 

issue a ruling today, but it's more important that we take the 

time for all of the issues to be absorbed. That's my goal. 

And also, sometime prior to August 27th, I will 

attempt to lay out what I will call sort of a tentative ruling. 

That's perhaps not exactly the right word, but tentative --

we'll call it a tentative ruling on what will be my view on 

what should be done in our estimation process. 

In other words, I will reflect on what I've heard from 

all of you today about should we separately brief the kind of 

inverse-condemnation issue. Should we separately split Tubbs 

into negligence versus damages? Should we roll the three into 

one? You know, all the things that we talked about today. And 

it will be really in the nature of talking points, if I can use 

that term that other organizations use, for focusing the 

discussion on the 27th about a status conference. And I'm 

going to, of course, take counsel's suggestion that I direct 

the parties to talk to one another and I'm not going to issue 

an order. You're responsible lawyers representing your 

clients. I don't have to tell you how to do that. 

I expect that the discussions of timing and discovery 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 193

of 341
194

PG&E Corp., 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 to see if there's any agreement to focus on any of the 

aspects that are relevant to the estimation -- I presume Mr.

Singleton and his comments notwithstanding, the message was 

clear that I intend to, at least, attempt to go forward on an 

estimation process consistent with what we were talking about. 

That is not say that I've agreed with any specific points that 

Mr. Orsini argued or disagree; it's just open for discussion. 

I debated even squeezing that into an earlier time, but I 

realize that all of you are doing all of the important things 

you're doing, not only for this case but other responsibilities 

and travel and what have you. 

So that's the goal, 27th. 

And so with that, I will go to the relief from stay 

items that are on the calendar, unless, Mr. Orsini, you or any 

of the principal counsel believe I've either left something 

unattended to or needs for me to say anything. Mr. Orsini?

MR. ORSINI: I don't believe so, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Julian?

MR. JULIAN: Fine, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. And I --

MR. DE GHETALDI: Relief from stay, Your Honor?

THE COURT: We're coming to that. That's what I'm 

coming to.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Okay. 

THE COURT: That's --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 194

of 341
195

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. DE GHETALDI: I've got something to say on that 

then. 

THE COURT: I know you do and so do I. Now we're 

about to call it.

MR. DE GHETALDI: I thought you weren't going to call 

it, Your Honor. That's what I -- my mistake. 

THE COURT: No, I think you misunderstand, Mr. de 

Ghetaldi. 

So consistent with what I said, I said that -- I said 

that the moving parties will have, I think, forty-five minutes, 

right? Isn't that what I said? Forty-five minutes for opening 

arguments. 

So, Mr. Julian, have you divided up the territory? I 

mean, it's much of what we talked about before. The difference 

is, we're doing them together, and so we're not doing it twice, 

and we'll just take whatever time we want. Okay. You okay 

with that?

MR. JULIAN: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. JULIAN: Robert Julian for the official committee 

of tort claimants. 

Your Honor, I will address simply three bankruptcy 

issues and then turn it over to the state-court lawyers who, on 

behalf of their thirteen Tubbs fire individual plaintiffs, 

joined in the relief from stay motion as parties, as moving 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 195

of 341
196

PG&E Corp., 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

parties too. 

I have the following three comments, Your Honor. 

First, we filed this motion primarily because we're dealing 

with a capped trust that has been promised by the debtor and 

other parties that is at risk of underfunding by reason of an 

estimation process that, because it's capped, is for purposes 

of distribution. 

In our read of the cases -- and common sense, in our 

view -- is that when dealing with estimation for purposes of 

establishing the funding of a capped trust that could put the 

plaintiffs at risk of underfunding when everyone else is being 

paid in full, the Court, prudently, should adopt special 

procedures to estimate. Among them are relief from stay; try 

jury trials where causation is at issue; estimating high, as 

Judge Perris stated; mini-trials and advisory jury trials. 

Because the Tubbs liability issue is a gating issue in this 

case -- meaning they can't resolve funding of a trust or 

agreeing on a consensual plan; everyone agrees to that -- we've 

picked Tubbs because it's the most important case and it is a 

gating issue. 

So the short point for number one is, we believe that 

while the Court's discretion on estimation is broad, we believe 

the cases establish that in this unique circumstance, 

discretion, when these facts are present, should be exercised 

one way in using specialized procedures, relief from stay being 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 196

of 341
197

PG&E Corp., 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

one of them. 

The second reason that we believe relief from stay is 

required, as a matter of the proper exercise of discretion, is 

that where causation is at issue for an entire set of claims, 

that could bankrupt the capped trust, or even if there's not a 

capped trust, the Court should not estimate how a jury would 

decide those claims. The Court should permit a jury to do it 

itself. 

THE COURT: That's sort of what Judge Perris talked 

about in --

MR. JULIAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: -- the Corning case, right?

MR. JULIAN: Yes. And the third reason has nothing to 

do with the proper exercise of discretion. It has to do with 

the tort committee's ability to obtain consent for a consensual 

plan or a plan in a cramdown confirmation battle. And in that 

regard, we reviewed the cases, especially the ones that the 

debtor's cited to you in their reply estimation brief, and we 

noticed a couple of things. 

First, those cases had an estimation procedure 

consented to by the tort committee. 

Second, those cases had plans with capped trusts, 

which were consensual plans because the victim's 

representative, which is the tort committee, was a plan 

proponent. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 197

of 341
198

PG&E Corp., 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 third, the victims voted overwhelmingly for the 

plan with the capped trust. In the Dow Corning case, it was 

ninety-five percent. Debtors point out that was a cramdown. 

In essence, you had a renegade law firm that didn't agree with 

everyone else in the case. We might even see such a renegade 

law firm in this case. 

THE COURT: Never happen. 

MR. JULIAN: But, Your Honor, for us, that's why we 

say we believe that confirmation of a plan with a capped trust 

that is not a consensual plan, where all the creditors are paid 

in full and equity retains some interest, are not confirmable 

under the fair, or anti-discrimination clause, absolute 

priority rule, and the discharge rule that Judge Perris and 

Judge Spector focused upon in Dow Corning. 

And we say that because an estimation that is too low 

or inaccurate could end up in your hypothetical that you asked 

me a moment ago, with the jury-trial claimants coming back into 

the trust, bankrupting the trust, or not having enough money to 

be paid in full where everyone else was being paid in full. 

So with that in mind, because of those three reasons, 

we went to the North Bay group and suggested that the Tubbs 

case had to be tried. The Atlas case is stayed by the 

automatic stay; can't go forward. 

THE COURT: Well, so is the Tubbs. I mean, they're 

both stayed. I mean, Butte is --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 198

of 341
199

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: They're all stayed, but --

MR. JULIAN: But --

THE COURT: -- you want relief on this. 

MR. JULIAN: With the preference statute being what it 

is in California, there can be speed. And so we joined 

together with the North Bay group --

THE COURT: So if I can interrupt you. You believe 

that if I grant relief as you asked, the Atlas matter stays 

stayed because no one's asked me to grant relief on the Atlas 

fire. 

MR. JULIAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. JULIAN: And so, Your Honor, now what I'd like to 

do, with that bankruptcy background in mind as the backdrop, is 

turn the podium over to the lead counsel for the North Bay 

group. 

THE COURT: One second. No, I have one more question 

of you, go ahead. Well, my question --

MR. JULIAN: To address the Tubbs case issues that 

you've asked for briefing on and they're ready to address them. 

THE COURT: Right. And I want that. But now I want 

to go back to you with one bankruptcy question. If I grant 

relief from stay for the Tubbs trial, it's not really an 

estimation at all, is it? It's much like the legal argument on 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 199

of 341
200

PG&E Corp., 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 inverse condemnation we talked about. There's nothing more 

to estimate. 

In other words, if the Tubbs trial goes forward, 

leaving aside all the timing and the potential appeal, if the 

issue of Tubbs, at least, negligence, it's a done deal. It's 

the law of the case. It's a component of estimation, because 

obviously --

MR. JULIAN: That's the way we view it. 

THE COURT: Yeah. But it's -- but I guess you view it 

then -- at the end of the day, the jury comes in and says PG&E 

is -- was negligent or wasn't negligent. And if it was 

negligent, then what? We don't get to the measure of damages 

or we get to the damages to the particular plaintiffs in that 

case, right? 

So if we have eight or fifteen, it doesn't matter, if 

the jury says PG&E was negligent and the eight each are owed X 

dollars, then at least as to those eight, there's no more --

they're done. They're liquidated at that point. 

MR. JULIAN: They are. And the decision -- the 

verdict on -- the judge's decision inverse and the jury's 

verdict on negligence, nuisance, and trespass, and the dollar 

components inform estimation --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. JULIAN: -- on all those elements because it's a 

Bellwether case. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 200

of 341
201

PG&E Corp., 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: Yes. It's a Bellwether case. And what 

isn't done yet -- I mean, isn't finished yet is an estimate of 

the damages -- well, I'm sorry, excuse me, the estimate of the 

damage of all the other ones --

MR. JULIAN: Yes.

THE COURT: -- because the Court presumably takes a --

well, to use the datapoint phase. If the datapoint is A, if 

this jury found PG&E liable and awarded damages of this amount 

to these eight people, then there's a datapoint to estimate 

what would be the liability beyond that.

MR. JULIAN: Yes. Yes. And there's a datapoint for 

the value of the tree which some people find it hard to believe 

that restoring oak trees in Sonoma is 150- to 200,000 dollars. 

I'm just --

THE COURT: Well, it doesn't matter what it is. It's 

something.

MR. JULIAN: But they're datapoints as a Bellwether 

trial.

THE COURT: But what does it do for the Atlas fire or 

the -- again, I can't keep track, the Camp fire or any of the 

other fires? I don't know how we get there. So you're -- are 

you saying that that's enough of a datapoint or are we back to 

we need twenty different trials?

MR. JULIAN: Two answers. As to the damage 

components, those are datapoints for all the other fires, for 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 201

of 341
202

PG&E Corp., 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

trees, square foot, depending upon the area --

THE COURT: Well, and --

MR. JULIAN: -- if the communities are different.

THE COURT: And injury to the victims.

MR. JULIAN: And injuries fleeing the fire. You now 

have some information.

THE COURT: No. But it's important that we're talking 

about some of -- without getting into the fine point of what is 

personal injury -- I certainly know what wrongful death is. 

But a jury's determination is there was a death. The victim's 

family is awarded damages of some amount. That is a marker, a 

datapoint, for the wrongful death of another victim of another 

fire or even of the very same fire.

MR. JULIAN: Precisely.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JULIAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: Got you. 

All right. With that, I appreciate the clarification 

of your view on the bankruptcy issues. And I'll let your 

colleagues help me out. 

MR. JULIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Good afternoon. 

MR. CAMPORA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Another

trial lawyer, not a bankruptcy lawyer.

THE COURT: I need a name, please. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 202

of 341
203

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. CAMPORA: My name is Steve Campora. 

THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Campora. Yeah, I've seen your 

name. 

MR. CAMPORA: Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, Your 

Honor. 

You asked earlier today what it would look like if 

today you granted a motion for relief of stay and how we would 

proceed. And I want to give you an outline of how I think we 

could proceed. And I have some questions for PG&E about how 

they would cooperate with that procedure, if they truly want to 

get things done timely. So let's assume --

THE COURT: Well, let's stick with the traditional 

format --

MR. CAMPORA: Okay.

THE COURT: -- and make the presentation to me. And 

I'll ask your opponent to respond when they're --

MR. CAMPORA: Absolutely.

THE COURT: -- making their argument.

MR. CAMPORA: So, Your Honor, today we got an order 

from this Court, granting relief of stay. Tomorrow it will be 

filed in the San Francisco Superior Court. And we would 

immediately contact the superior court, including Judge Jackson 

who is now the JCCP judge in San Francisco. 

And we would ask for a date for the hearing of a 

motion for preference on two grounds, one being Code of Civil 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 203

of 341
204

PG&E Corp., 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

Procedure Section 36(a) which is a person over seventy with an 

infirmity. 

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. CAMPORA: The other ground is Section (e), Your 

Honor, which recognizes that a superior court always has 

control of its calendar. And it says when, in the interest of 

justice, it's apparent to the court that preference should be 

granted, it can grant preference.

THE COURT: So just to procedures, without getting 

into the details, you don't -- you just make contact to the 

clerk? You don't file something that goes into --

MR. CAMPORA: We would say we'd ask for the date for 

the hearing, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. CAMPORA: The problem -- if I'm doing it, if I'm 

one of the people doing it, I will ask the Court for a day for 

an ex parte application. I have to give twenty-four hours' 

notice. I'll ask for an ex parte application for an order 

shortening time.

THE COURT: And what do you get if you don't have an 

order to shorten time?

MR. CAMPORA: Sixteen court days.

THE COURT: Sixteen court days? 

MR. CAMPORA: I have to give sixteen court days' 

notice, Your Honor. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 204

of 341
205

PG&E Corp., 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: Okay.

MR. CAMPORA: So if I get an order shortening time, 

we'll have the motion heard on short notice. Perhaps our 

opponents will stipulate to an order shortening time. And then 

if we can establish that the people are entitled to a 

preference under 36(a), it's mandatory that it be granted. 

THE COURT: No. I understand.

MR. CAMPORA: And then the Court has to --

THE COURT: What --

MR. CAMPORA: -- set a trial date.

THE COURT: Stop for a minute. I don't know. You do. 

I don't know, and I don't need to know.

MR. CAMPORA: Sure.

THE COURT: But what do courts do generally with these 

mandatory things when they're backed up with a criminal 

calendar or any other things that make mandatory impossible? 

Is there --

MR. CAMPORA: Your Honor, there's a --

THE COURT: -- a workaround? 

MR. CAMPORA: There's a case, a recent case, called 

Koch-Ash v. Superior Court at 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 694 that says 

your calendar doesn't matter, court; you have an obligation to 

do this in the 120 days. 

THE COURT: Okay. So your view is let's say no 

shortened time, tomorrow is -- well, whether you file it 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 205

of 341
206

PG&E Corp., 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

tomorrow. I mean, you file it soon. And then within two to 

three weeks, with luck and whatever sixteen court days are, 

three days -- three weeks, four weeks, then there's a hearing 

before whoever the judge is, Judge Jackson or whatever. And 

then he or she -- Judge Jackson makes a ruling. And the ruling 

would then be trial must start in 120 days.

MR. CAMPORA: It has to be within 120 days of the date 

of the hearing. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. CAMPORA: And I -- from my experience, I can't 

imagine, Judge, that if we went to San Francisco Superior Court 

with an order for relief of stay under these circumstances, 

that a superior-court judge, knowing that there is how -- the 

30,000, 40,000, 50,000 fire victims who are trying to get this 

matter done, would say I'm not going to -- the interest of 

justice don't require that we have this matter done as quickly 

as possible. 

THE COURT: And you're -- I take it, as counsel who 

might be doing this, that the presence of Judge Karnow's ruling 

on that was irrelevant because it's state. 

MR. CAMPORA: The --

THE COURT: Or is there -- or let me -- why don't we 

say this? Doesn't stand in the way and that you believe that 

the court would be, if not obligated, would, in fact, set Tubbs 

for trial.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 206

of 341
207

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. CAMPORA: Absolutely, Your Honor. The only cases 

that will have relief of stay are those that have made the 

motion to you.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. CAMPORA: So that's the one you're granting 

relief. 

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure 

we're clear on that. And what's the trial estimate? 

MR. CAMPORA: Well, Your Honor, that's in large part 

dependent on our opponent and what we can agree or not agree on 

in terms of facts.

In addition, Your Honor, I would suggest to this Court 

that we would suggest to the JCCP or to the trial judge, 

whoever is assigned, that we could bifurcate the trial in order 

to get the answer. We'd have the same jury for the entire 

trial, but we could bifurcate the trial on liability. The 

judge would rule us to inverse. The jury would rule us in 

negligence. 

If the jury -- if liability is established, we would 

then go forward and do the damages. So it could be done so 

that the liability part gives you an answer sooner and then the 

damages second.

THE COURT: Well, okay. So let's say this motion is 

heard on or about Labor Day. Trial, mandatory trial. Maybe 

the judge would set it the next two weeks out. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 207

of 341
208

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. CAMPORA: Yeah. It's --

THE COURT: But --

MR. CAMPORA: The 120 days is an outside, not a --

THE COURT: I got it. I got it.

MR. CAMPORA: Right.

THE COURT: So that means September, October, 

November, December. You're in trial around the end of the 

year. And you're -- what's your estimate of trial time for the 

liability issue?

MR. CAMPORA: Okay. That -- like I said earlier --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. CAMPORA: -- Your Honor, that depends in large 

part on what agreements we can make or not make with --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. CAMPORA: -- Pacific Gas Electric Company. Mr. 

Kelly is going to talk a little bit after me about the issues 

and the timing of the trial itself, the length of time. 

But again, my -- our position would be that, whatever 

the time is for the liability, which I think we could get done 

relatively quickly -- relatively quickly, given the issues that 

need to be tried --

THE COURT: Give me a guess. A week, two weeks, two 

days? I mean --

MR. CAMPORA: No. I'm --

THE COURT: How long does it --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 208

of 341
209

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. CAMPORA: My estimate --

THE COURT: How long does it take --

MR. CAMPORA: My estimate for trial --

THE COURT: -- to select --

MR. CAMPORA: -- for liability would be three to four 

weeks.

THE COURT: How long does it take to select a jury? 

Again, I'm out of my element. 

MR. CAMPORA: Well, Your Honor --

THE COURT: If I ever have a jury, we can select them 

quickly. But in the superior court --

MR. CAMPORA: Judges --

THE COURT: -- what's the selection time?

MR. CAMPORA: Judges in the superior court have the

right to control jury selection and the time we have to select 

jurors. That's also that something that could be controlled by 

the trial judge.

THE COURT: But what's the range? I mean, what's 

your --

MR. CAMPORA: I'm just saying we picked a -- I've 

picked juries in complex cases in two days, two to three days. 

THE COURT: Okay. So again, we're around the best 

case January, early January. 

MR. CAMPORA: It'll be 120 days from whenever we have 

the hearing. Yes, sir. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 209

of 341
210

PG&E Corp., 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: Well, I understand. I understand. 

MR. CAMPORA: And again, that's the outside date. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. CAMPORA: So -- and then we get the result for the 

liability and the damages, all of which gives you information. 

THE COURT: That -- well, if you're passing it off to 

one of your cocounsel to estimate the jury trial, I mean, the 

time for the trial and --

MR. CAMPORA: Mr. Kelly is going to address that for 

you.

THE COURT: Okay. But, I mean, I'm just doing the 

math here.

MR. CAMPORA: Sure.

THE COURT: And he can help me with that. But --

MR. CAMPORA: Well, Your Honor, the one thing I would 

say on that issue is PG&E has repeatedly said their interest 

here is getting these things done quickly for the victims. And 

they also have an interest in getting this done before June 

30th of -- June of next year. 

THE COURT: Right. That's right.

MR. CAMPORA: How quickly this happens, how much 

cooperation there is is in large part in their hands as well. 

THE COURT: No. I --

MR. CAMPORA: If they're going to --

THE COURT: I understand that.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 210

of 341
211

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. CAMPORA: If they're going to contest this on 

every issue and every motion and everything, that's their 

issue. They're the ones that need to be done by June of next 

year to participate --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. CAMPORA: -- in the wildfire fund. 

THE COURT: -- but be careful what you wish for 

because this -- I don't know whether this is an argument to 

deny relief from stay or grant relief from stay. But it looks 

to me like it's your best case -- even without a lot of 

scorched earth opposition, best case you're going to be at 

trial in January, maybe earlier. But again, I --

MR. CAMPORA: I guess they got to --

THE COURT: And if -- when Mr. Kelly tells me how long 

the jury trial is estimated to be, if he tells me --

MR. CAMPORA: Sure.

THE COURT: -- four weeks, that's --

MR. CAMPORA: Well --

THE COURT: -- that's another month to add on this.

MR. CAMPORA: Judge, let's assume that PG&E cooperates 

fully and we get our discovery done in less than 120 days and 

we go to the trial court and say, do you know what, we can go 

sooner, those are all issues that will be handled if the 

matter -- relief of stay is lifted. 

MR. CAMPORA: Before you leave the podium, Mr. Julian, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 211

of 341
212

PG&E Corp., 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

which of your colleagues is going to talk about the issue of 

coordination, whether the role --

MR. JULIAN: Mr. Pitre. 

THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Pitre is going to talk about that? 

Okay. That's fine. I just wanted to get the right lawyer to 

ask. 

MR. JULIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

Mr. Pitre, are you up next or are you --

MR. PITRE: Mr. Kelly.

THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Kelly.

MR. KELLY: Because I'm forgetful, Your Honor. Mr. 

Pitre will undoubtedly get that. 

Let me just ask -- answer a couple of the questions 

here and also address a couple of things in the briefs. 

Your question, a reasonable question, about what if 

the judge has a backed up criminal calendar, in the San 

Francisco Superior Court, the same judge does not handle a 

civil and a criminal matter. 

THE COURT: Okay. Again, I don't know -- I mean, I 

know -- I'll take whatever your answer is. 

MR. KELLY: Yeah. No, no, no.

THE COURT: If the other side disagrees, they'll tell 

me.

MR. KELLY: And I --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 212

of 341
213

PG&E Corp., 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: I just don't know. And what I want to 

tell you is I just sort of understood that criminal takes 

precedent over civil; therefore, what do you do about this 

statutory thing? And if the answer is there's enough judges to 

go around, then that's the answer. 

MR. KELLY: That's right. And not only is there 

enough judges to go around, Your Honor, but the JCCP 

assignment, originally to Judge Karnow, now sitting with Judge 

Jackson, permits Judge Jackson to either retain the case or 

assign it to another judge in the court --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. KELLY: -- who is sitting in civil. IN fact, it 

could be Judge Karnow who is now sitting general civil.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. KELLY: So in terms of --

THE COURT: Your view and Mr. Campora's view is that 

get to that judge, the judge will be bound to follow the 

statute and send it out to a trial no later than the date we've 

been talking about. 

MR. KELLY: That's right. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KELLY: And the second thing is, in the papers, 

there is a suggestion -- there's great irony here, and I'm sure 

it's not lost on the Court, that if PG&E gets its plan, it gets 

to an estimation with no discovery on our part in seven weeks. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 213

of 341
214

PG&E Corp., 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

If we want to shine the light of day on the facts in the case 

so that twenty-five percent of the victims can actually see 

what happened, they want to fight, as you used the term, 

scorched earth and oppose at every opportunity and slow things 

down.

So it's worth listening to Mr. Campora's thoughts 

which is, of course, anything people stipulate to can be done 

in a more rapid fashion. 

THE COURT: Well, but --

MR. KELLY: So --

THE COURT: Go ahead. 

MR. KELLY: So the opposing papers suggest, oh, there 

has to be a trial on the issue of preference suitability. It's 

not true. And I'm not surprised that Mr. Orsini doesn't know 

that. He doesn't practice in the state courts in California. 

This is decided on affidavits. That there is going to be long 

motions on expert witness qualification, it doesn't happen in 

the state of California. I'm not surprised Mr. Orsini doesn't 

know that. He doesn't practice here. And so on and so forth 

in terms of suggesting why there would be delay.

Realistically, Your Honor, in terms of federal-state 

coordination, I've been really privileged to be in a lot of 

litigations where the federal court judge picks up the phone, 

calls Judge Garrett Wong who's across the street and says I 

have this issue, we need to try this case, there's a JCCP, it 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 214

of 341
215

PG&E Corp., 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

was handled by Judge Karnow, should I talk to you, should I 

talk to Judge Jackson about how we should send it back. 

With reference to the Atlas question, which was a fair 

question, it was not set as a preference or special setting. 

So it's as though its date came, went, and doesn't exist. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KELLY: There are no -- essentially no pending 

trial dates. 

In terms of other special procedures, certainly the 

Court could say, well, you could bifurcate liability and 

damages. That would shorten the trial. I don't -- we talked 

about Karnak earlier. I don't have the card in my forehead, so 

I'm not going to say twenty days, what's the question, Your 

Honor. 

I think, realistically, you pick this jury in two days 

or less. You have a day of final arguments at the end. You 

have forty-five hours each. I think you're probably at four 

weeks. Could you shorten it up by bifurcating liability and 

damage? You could. 

Now, on the issue of --

THE COURT: Okay. So just we're clear, then best 

case, you're into February for a verdict. 

MR. KELLY: Right. And I'm coming to that in a 

moment.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 215

of 341
216

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. KELLY: And I'll just stay there right now because 

there was an argument made this morning I think by Mr. 

Singleton. So I think this is really important. 1054 was not 

for PG&E's benefit. 1054 was intended to benefit the victims. 

PG&E has done a wonderful job or redefining the narrative, kind 

of the, oh, poor me that it's gone through since the very first 

buyer. Oh, we have to get out. Oh, we have to get in that --

we have to get that insurance. We need that for us. 

Your Honor, twenty-six percent of all losses; 

twenty-two deaths, more deaths than any other North Bay fire; 

36,000, more acres than any other fire; 5,600 structures, more 

structures than any other fire is in Tubbs. 

Those people have the right to have the light of day 

shined on the facts and shined on PG&E's behavior and its 

conduct. I know the -- I heard 502. I understand that. But 

there is an issue here with respect to the people's right to 

know what this defendant did. And the only way that it's ever 

going to happen is to relieve the stay, let the facts be played 

out in front of the public. 

And to the extent that PG&E doesn't like that, we are 

not the people -- we are not the ones who killed everyone, who 

burned everyone up. And they know the report is flawed. They 

know they monkeyed with the evidence. They know what's going 

on. And we believe that from a justice and transparency point 

of view as opposed to the quickie efficiency point of view, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 216

of 341
217

PG&E Corp., 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

that the people who suffer these losses are entitled to have 

this trial be public. 

And I believe Mr. Campora is right. A judge could say 

I want this case over in three-and-a-half weeks. Lord knows 

there are Article III judges who have given less time perhaps 

not on as complicated cases. 

THE COURT: There are probably some bankruptcy judges 

that have done that too, not in a case --

MR. KELLY: Well --

THE COURT: -- of this complexity. 

MR. KELLY: -- perhaps. I wouldn't know any. But, of 

course, I'm --

THE COURT: Well, but you already admitted --

MR. KELLY: -- just a PI lawyer.

THE COURT: -- that you don't know any anyway. 

MR. KELLY: That's right.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. KELLY: And so my point is I think there are 

special procedures. And I think bifurcation of liability and 

damage is one. 

But the other thing I wanted to say was there was some 

question about will there be twenty clients or thirty clients, 

this is not going to be a Bellwether. But the point and the 

reason for the preference was to remove discretion to set a 

trial date beyond 120 days. It wasn't necessarily to mirror a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 217

of 341
218

PG&E Corp., 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

specific case. We tried to pick examples, as I'm sure the 

other lawyers did, where the judge has to grant the preference. 

Now, whether that judge decides to try three or five, 

we are not demanding anything other than a trial date to try 

the liability in Tubbs, to shine the light on the truth.

THE COURT: Well, I'm troubled by this shine the light 

on truth as distinguished from establishing liability because I 

don't want to sound like I'm insensitive to these broad 

questions that you're describing, but I do have a statute that 

this debtor and any other debtor has available and a mandatory 

provision of doing things. 

Now, granted, I can do both. It's not all or nothing. 

I can have an estimation and grant relief from stay. And you 

and your colleagues are making a good argument about it. 

But I'm having trouble knowing whether I'm supposed to 

make a decision because of these very important issues that are 

not relevant to the bankruptcy inquiry. They certainly are 

relevant to the social as a Northern California resident, as 

people who had suffers some damages. They're all important. 

But I don't think they're bankruptcy --

MR. KELLY: Well, I think they are --

THE COURT: -- court issues.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. And I would --

THE COURT: And that's my problem.

MR. KELLY: I would differ on this basis which is --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 218

of 341
219

PG&E Corp., 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: Okay.

MR. KELLY: -- if the aim of the Court is to get it 

right and not have this be one of the great tragedies of all 

time, which is first the people are wronged and then the 

estimation is wrong, then having a trial where all of the facts 

and expert opinion based upon all the facts and testimony from 

the knowledgeable corporate people are tested and vetted by 

jurors is a safeguard to make sure that the estimation 

ultimately gets it right. 

THE COURT: Well, then how -- what -- then help me on 

the statements made in the TCC brief. Again, I don't know 

which of you was the contributor to this thing about which the 

Court --

MR. KELLY: All I know is I don't write well, Your 

Honor. So --

THE COURT: Well, I wasn't talking about the grammar. 

I'm talking about the concept of coordinating --

MR. KELLY: Oh, I was thinking about the thinking. 

I'm not good at that. 

THE COURT: -- coordinating and supervising. There's 

a statement made about I'm supposed to supervise the superior 

court. I don't think that's appropriate. What is meant by 

that?

MR. KELLY: Well, and I think that probably was an 

overstatement. What --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 219

of 341
220

PG&E Corp., 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: What do you -- let's suppose that I accept 

your arguments and your colleagues' and I grant relief from 

stay. And meanwhile, I go forward with our estimation issue. 

What's -- and I'm not one to pick up the phone and call another 

judge. That's not to say I haven't done it and wouldn't do it 

if for a reason.

What's your take on the interaction, if any, that 

should exist? 

MR. KELLY: My take, Your Honor, actually is that this 

would be an exception to where the Court should be both 

comfortable and interested in picking up the phone once a week 

or more frequently. 

THE COURT: And asking what? 

MR. KELLY: Are we getting -- are we on track, are we 

on schedule, are we --

THE COURT: And what if I don't like the answer?

MR. KELLY: Then I think you call us in here and the 

other judge calls us in or you tell the other judge this has to 

be done. That's what happens in reality when you have federal 

and state cases going in parallel. I just finished --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. KELLY: -- such a case.

THE COURT: -- you're talking to the only bankruptcy 

judge that I know that ever invited a superior-court judge to 

come over and sit with me. And I did it twice. They're both 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 220

of 341
221

PG&E Corp., 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

still -- well, one of them is still sitting on the superior 

court, Judge Robertson. He was a rookie judge, and I was. And 

we were both getting fairly inconsistent --

MR. KELLY: That must have been before the Heller 

bankruptcy, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: It was before all the big law firm 

bankruptcies. There were a couple of little law firm 

bankruptcies.

But the point is, and this is important to me, the --

I was getting the story, Your Honor, I'm not trial lawyer, I 

don't know. And I found out later that Judge Robertson was 

getting that, well, I'm not the bankruptcy lawyer, I don't 

know. So I called Judge Robertson and said would you like to 

come over and sit in the bankruptcy court with me. And he did. 

And we heard the same -- we heard one story from two lawyers.

I did the same thing with Judge Cahill again. So I've 

done it twice.

I'm not opposed to it. The question is what happens 

next. And that was much different. It wasn't to second-guess 

or try to wonder what's going on in another court. That was a 

case of getting the same information from people. So --

MR. KELLY: And I think this is much the same thing. 

The case I was referring to that involved Johnson & Johnson 

recently, the federal, district, MDL judge came and sat in San 

Francisco in our JCCP hearings as we discussed evidence 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 221

of 341
222

PG&E Corp., 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

rulings, the collection of evidence, the progress of discovery. 

So I think we would be in favor of having you --

supervise is the inappropriate word because I don't think 

there's a question of who outranks who -- but certainly be 

involved with co-management of what's going forward. 

THE COURT: Well, let's worry about that if it comes. 

If I'm persuaded to grant relief, I might need some guidance on 

whether it's appropriate. I don't -- I'm not suggesting any 

impropriety or offering to engage in any. It's -- I still 

don't know what the role -- remember, we're taught -- and I 

don't know -- I don't speak for Article III judges, but I would 

imagine where one Article III judge might do that, another one 

won't. It's probably very personal to the judges. And I 

suspect that's probably true with the state-court judges.

So we'll leave that aside. Okay. 

Anything more, Mr. Kelly?

MR. KELLY: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Julian, what do you got next for me?

MR. JULIAN: Mr. Pitre. 

THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Pitre. Sorry. 

MR. PITRE: Briefly, Your Honor. 

I agree with the Court's struggle with this whole 

issue because I sense from the Court, just like many of us in 

the courtroom, is that we like to have control over things. 

And we want to make sure that things are managed --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 222

of 341
223

PG&E Corp., 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: I'm not a control freak, if that's what 

you're saying. 

MR. PITRE: Well, I -- not to suggest you're a control 

freak. But control over process, where this Court is 

concerned, that it has a mandate under 1054, that as we heard 

in the courtroom the other day, the CPUC said it's going to 

take us about six months to be able to go through and process 

whether or not whatever proposal comes out of this Court is 

going to be neutral to rate payers. 

And I can see the Court's struggle with saying I have 

all these moving pieces, and I need to be able to meet a time 

frame that is being imposed on me and do justice and try to 

resolve fair compensation. 

So here is the issue I come up with, Judge. This 

Court can be the quarterback, but it needs help in resources. 

When I look at this case and I look at resources and I look at 

all the work that has to be done, I come back and say how can 

the Court do all the things that it's required to do by itself 

and manage all the things that are being thrown out it. And as 

the Court said the other day, when it gives briefs, at the last 

minute at midnight, there are thirty pages. 

So the question that I have, Judge, is how do we do 

justice by the victims, do justice by all the parties? And we 

only have one judge. So I look at this. And I say, well, we 

have procedures in the Manual for Complex Litigation. And, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 223

of 341
224

PG&E Corp., 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

Judge, this is an unprecedented case. I don't think anybody 

has dealt with the volume of issues and the time constraints 

that have been imposed on this Court. I can't find it. 

THE COURT: It's on everybody. It's not just this 

Court. 

MR. PITRE: It is.

THE COURT: It's everybody.

MR. PITRE: And that's why I'm saying --

THE COURT: We're in it together.

MR. PITRE: -- when we have an unprecedented case 

before us, we have to be very creative in our thinking. And my 

suggestion to the Court is why not utilize the resources of a 

state court. It is set up to apply California law every day of 

the week to mass torts, to manage mass torts, to be able to do 

all these difficult things in trying to manage a Tubbs case. 

That's all we're talking about right now. Tubbs. 

How do you try Tubbs and get a datapoint, and a very 

influential datapoint, that will assist the Court, lay the 

groundwork for foundation? It's not the be all and end all, 

but it's a very important datapoint. 

THE COURT: Okay. So let me stop you again.

MR. PITRE: Yes.

THE COURT: You're going to tell me you're not the 

bankruptcy lawyer, and you've got a couple of very capable ones 

at the table with you. But you're up. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 224

of 341
225

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. PITRE: Thank you.

THE COURT: So it's February. And I've told Mr. 

Orsini what's the story, I thought we were going to have an 

estimation trial done by now. And if you heard -- you were --

were you --

MR. PITRE: I heard --

THE COURT: Were you here yesterday?

MR. PITRE: Yes, I was. 

THE COURT: Okay. So if you heard this time line 

about it and their collective answer is, well, we're waiting 

for the result over in superior court, I mean, am I -- is that 

what I'm supposed to say is okay? 

MR. PITRE: No.

THE COURT: And this notion that, well, 1054s for the 

victims, I understand that. But nobody -- nobody has told me 

to ignore 1054. And Mr. Orsini is going to have his views 

about it, and I defer it with him. 

So what do I do if we come to all stop and Mr. 

Kornberg comes out and says I thought you guys were going to 

pass the ball to the CPC because we need six months and I go, 

well, we're waiting for the jury --

MR. PITRE: Sure.

THE COURT: -- across the street? I mean, Mr. Pitre, 

I need --

MR. PITRE: May I respond?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 225

of 341
226

PG&E Corp., 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: Yes, by all means. 

MR. PITRE: Thank you. 

THE COURT: Give me the roadmap.

MR. PITRE: If I was -- if I had a wand and I could 

help formulate a plan -- and I don't want to go outside the 

Court's purview. But as we talked about, there are twenty-two 

fires.

THE COURT: H-huh.

MR. PITRE: Break the twenty-two fires down, they 

break down to five fires that make up ninety-two percent of all 

of the total damages. So you have the Camp fire. You have the 

Tubbs fire. You have the Nuns complex. You have Atlas. And 

you have Redwood fire. Five cases, ninety-two percent total 

value of claims. 

We are people who can walk and chew gum at the same 

time, me. While people are trying a Tubbs case on liability, 

which poses the most difficult, we can have parallel tracks. 

And what I would do is start to look at some of these other 

trials, an Atlas trial, do an estimation on liability, 

causation -- I don't know what they're all going to contest.

THE COURT: You mean bankruptcy court?

MR. PITRE: Sure. Keep that going on. At the same 

end, let's do a foldout. Let's take Atlas. We start with 

Atlas. The Court sets a trial for estimation and values on 

Atlas. That's going on while there's a trial over on Tubbs in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 226

of 341
227

PG&E Corp., 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 Superior Court. I don't know how many days 

that's going to be. We're going to have to go through the 

evidence. Phase 1. You put on your valuation expert. What 

are the damages for the Atlas fire?

THE COURT: Well, right now --

MR. PITRE: Now you go to the next phase.

THE COURT: Let me stop you again. 

MR. PITRE: Okay.

THE COURT: Over in the superior court, they don't 

have this concept of estimation. 

MR. PITRE: True. 

THE COURT: They have it -- it's trial. 

MR. PITRE: Here.

THE COURT: Now, maybe you bifurcate it the way Mr. 

Campora said. But it's still -- there's no animal called an 

estimation. So --

MR. PITRE: Correct. 

THE COURT: So --

MR. PITRE: In this court. In this court. 

Estimation --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. PITRE: What I heard this Court say this 

morning --

THE COURT: The superior court doesn't have that tool 

available.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 227

of 341
228

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. PITRE: That is true. 

THE COURT: So you're -- yes. We, the bankruptcy 

world, have this little guy called 502 --

MR. PITRE: Correct.

THE COURT: -- called estimate. So you want me --

you're telling me that you would suggest, well, Tubbs is in 

front of a jury across the street, we should be doing our 

estimate for one of the fires. So it sounds like you're 

arguing for the multiple --

MR. PITRE: Phasing --

THE COURT: -- the seriatim estimation --

MR. PITRE: Phasing --

THE COURT: -- for the big fires.

MR. PITRE: As I said, walk and chew gum. You can 

have a trial going on in one court, which is the most 

significant one because there's disputed issues of liability 

that has significant impact. On the others, once we've had a 

discussion with PG&E so we understand what evidence is 

necessary to do that, we can discuss a rolled out phase program 

where one could be estimating both the liability and damages on 

the other trials. So you've not -- so what you're doing is 

you're building off a phase approach and building the overall 

damage model, so the only piece you're waiting for for 

information is Tubbs. Now --

THE COURT: So at least your argument is that, of the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 228

of 341
229

PG&E Corp., 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

five major -- well, they're all major, if you're a victim of 

it. But in terms of the overall, one of them is before a jury 

with a bellwether. Just a bellwether, though.

MR. PITRE: That's correct.

THE COURT: And four of them are here for estimation 

by -- again, for all -- what I'm going to say for all 

bankruptcy purposes. So there is -- it's not a bellwether. It 

is it.

MR. PITRE: For --

THE COURT: And that's what your advocating.

MR. PITRE: Well, if I'm going to understand the 

estimation process -- I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer -- is to set 

what is the capped amount at some point, and I have an issue 

with the capped, obviously.

THE COURT: Well, no, it's not a capped amount. It's 

an amount.

MR. PITRE: Yes.

THE COURT: Period. And then caps are what happens 

later.

MR. PITRE: Correct.

THE COURT: In other words, you don't -- and again, if 

Mr. Julian thinks I got it wrong, he'll say so. But to my way 

of thinking if I accept your proposal and just pick Atlas 

because that's the name that I mentioned yesterday, we have an 

estimation for Atlas, and whether that's a two-experts 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 229

of 341
230

PG&E Corp., 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

testimony or two days of testimony or five days of testimony or 

whatever, at the end of that process, my role -- again leave 

aside whether a district judge gets involved -- is to say the 

estimated component of the bundle of what -- excuse me -- the 

estimated liability of PG&E is a certain dollar amount.

MR. PITRE: Yes.

THE COURT: And then we're done. That's it for Atlas. 

I mean --

MR. PITRE: That's the only --

THE COURT: -- do you understand that? I mean, that's 

the way I read it, and that's the way I think Mr. Julian was 

discussing it and Mr. Orsini. So we're done estimation for 

Atlas.

MR. PITRE: That's the only way I can see that you can 

have this process done, done quickly, given this Court's 

inclination to have an estimation hearing with the exception --

THE COURT: It's not my inclination. It's my reading 

of the law.

MR. PITRE: I understand, Your Honor, and following 

this Court's following the law under 502 and understanding that 

Tubbs presents the most complex of all the issues of causation 

and liability that I am suggesting that that can operate on a 

parallel track --

THE COURT: Yeah, no I --

MR. PITRE: -- with estimation.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 230

of 341
231

PG&E Corp., 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: No, you made that clear. What you're 

adding to the conversation is other fires, and I mean, if I 

could -- if there were only one fire, only Tubbs, the issue 

might be is it better to send it to trial or forget the trial 

and do the estimation. Obviously, I know what PG&E will argue, 

but that might be what we're talking about. And maybe that's a 

winning argument if it's in fact doable to be able to meet the 

statutory predicate of don't unduly delay the administration of 

the case. But that's itself a very, very amorphous term and 

gets us back to the whole question of AB1054. 

And by the way, all the other victims who hold 

liquidated claims, all the other trade creditors, all the other 

banks -- and I know there's not a lot of sympathy for banks --

but they are all beneficiaries of this bankruptcy, and like it 

not they all have the same relative priority with one another. 

So you got to take that into account. 

In other words, I believe Congress told the bankruptcy 

judges you have to estimate these things because you can't keep 

the collective mass waiting. Now, here, we're way out of 

balance from any typical. We have enormous numbers of people 

who are victims of a tort. They didn't choose to be claims. 

And in most bankruptcies, most of the claimants chose to be 

creditors; not all the cases but --

So that's the tradeoff.

MR. PITRE: Yeah, my concern, Judge, is that it has 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 231

of 341
232

PG&E Corp., 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

been expressed -- and I don't think I need to say it again but 

just to make it clear. My only concern with this process is we

either comply with 1054, or we face a constitutional challenge 

that somehow it violates somebody's due process, and in the 

whole scheme of things, we lose sight of the fact that people 

need to be compensated promptly. But here's the most important 

word that gets left out. Not only compensated promptly but 

fairly. How do we build the process to ensure that the 

individuals in whatever process that we use have a fair 

opportunity to present the evidence that is necessary to follow 

the law and have a decision-maker determine whether or not 

they've proved their case to entitlement to just compensation 

or not? And the only way I can understand or configure to do 

it is we have to use more resources on those really difficult 

issues, because the issues on management of Tubbs is going to 

be dealing with a lot of pre-trial issues, a lot of evidentiary 

issues, a lot things that crop up. And I believe, in my humble 

opinion, that if we have a court that is experienced -- this 

Court uses the word "toolbox". What are the tools that you 

have to do this? The state court, when it comes to that --

THE COURT: No, listen, I --

MR. PITRE: -- has a very big toolbox.

THE COURT: We send things to them all the time.

MR. PITRE: Right.

THE COURT: Unlawful retainer and stuff like that, but 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 232

of 341
233

PG&E Corp., 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

how do you reconcile the statutory priority with the complexity 

of pre-trial? In other words --

MR. PITRE: Well, it's got to be done within the time, 

but all I'm saying is --

THE COURT: Okay, but what --

MR. PITRE: -- we're going to need access to people.

THE COURT: But how do you do it if -- I take it even 

the party entitled to the statutory priority can waive it?

MR. PITRE: Judge, I --

THE COURT: Well, no --

MR. PITRE: -- this is not something that's waivable. 

It's mandatory.

THE COURT: Well, but if the plaintiff is eighty years 

old --

MR. PITRE: Right.

THE COURT: -- the plaintiff's lawyer needs more time 

to prepare. I doubt -- the plaintiff isn't forced to go to 

trial, is he?

MR. PITRE: Judge, in my humble opinion, it's a 

mandatory statute.

THE COURT: So what --

MR. PITRE: This person's titled to their day in 

court.

THE COURT: But what I just said is if the person who 

wants more time --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 233

of 341
234

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. PITRE: They're entitled to one extension of 

thirty days.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PITRE: Not more.

THE COURT: So I'm not trying to tell you that I would 

like --

MR. PITRE: Sure.

THE COURT: -- to act like I'm a superior-court judge 

with that experience. Just like you guys like to come in here 

and say, I don't do bankruptcy. You know what? I don't do 

state court. So I don't, and I don't intend to, or pretend to, 

but I'm trying to just understand how it works.

MR. PITRE: Sure.

THE COURT: So sure, I can appreciate your comments 

about the pre-trial complexity. The bankruptcy courts 

generally don't have the kind of pre-trial complexity that 

state court have or that district judges have. I mean, talk to 

one of the district judges about a patent case, and you know 

what happens. My God, they're -- okay, so and they look at me 

and say, boy, you don't have to do patents. And I don't have 

to do criminal, and I don't have to do a lot of things. 

So it's true. It is not something that we do very 

often if at all, but that's not the point. That's the point of 

the estimation process.

MR. PITRE: Understood.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 234

of 341
235

PG&E Corp., 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 in a less complex case, it's a very 

useful tool and very effective tool. So --

MR. PITRE: And my only point is that the state-court 

judges deal with these issues every day of the week.

THE COURT: Um-hum, I know.

MR. PITRE: And they have resources to assist them to 

manage all of these pre-trial issues so that they do not waste 

time and do not extend the time. And all I am suggesting is 

that with Tubbs, the resources that are going to be needed to 

manage that complex issue are available, the toolbox is there, 

and the resources are there.

THE COURT: Okay. I've got you.

MR. PITRE: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thanks.

Mr. de Ghetaldi, you've been patient, so come on up, 

please. And I did read your separate memorandum, and I'm aware 

of what your theories are.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Good. So, Your Honor, I think that 

there is a gaping issue --

THE COURT: But listen, let me tell you. Don't waste 

your time on things like nondischargeability --

MR. DE GHETALDI: I'm not.

THE COURT: -- and discharge --

MR. DE GHETALDI: I'm not.

THE COURT: -- because it's not a bankruptcy issue.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 235

of 341
236

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. DE GHETALDI: I'm not.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DE GHETALDI: I know. And I admit that I am 

fumbling a little bit --

THE COURT: You're not.

MR. DE GHETALDI: -- in this world, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You're not. You're not.

MR. DE GHETALDI: I am, and I admit it, and I know it. 

But one thing that I am hearing, as we go through this process, 

as I'm hearing that clock ticking, and I'm here today for this 

purpose: because I've got one client who is about to become 

eighty-nine years old. He has cancer. I have another client 

who's ninety-seven years old, and she's about to become ninetyeight. And they're two of the parties that the TCC designated 

on our --

THE COURT: They're within the group of eight?

MR. DE GHETALDI: Yes, they are, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Yes. And if you'll recall, we made 

the original joinder request because the Court had expressed 

concern over whether the committee had standing to raise this 

issue.

THE COURT: Yeah, no one raised that. I mean --

MR. DE GHETALDI: All right.

THE COURT: -- that was easily solved.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 236

of 341
237

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. DE GHETALDI: Okay, and so --

THE COURT: So tell me what your fellow colleagues 

didn't raise that you'd like to raise.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Happy to, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DE GHETALDI: First of all, let me clarify one 

thing about the extension that's possible under Section 36. 

Under Section 36(f), there's only one fifteen-day extension 

available, and that is if a party has a physical disability. 

But, Your Honor, I ask the Court -- and I know the 

Court's read it, but I would ask the Court to review the 

quotations that we provided from the half a dozen cases, 

Swaithes, Rice, Kline, Koch-Ash, Looney, Laborers 

International, that discuss the legislative intent behind 

Section 36.

THE COURT: Oh, let me stop you. I couldn't be -- I'm 

completely impressed you've made the case, with one exception. 

And you're talking to a bankruptcy court --

MR. DE GHETALDI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- that imposes the automatic stay or 

enforces the automatic stay thousands of times a week, and no 

one has ever come in and said the stay doesn't apply or I'm 

entitled to relief from stay because of the substantive nature 

of the state law. The automatic stay is federal, and it 

preempts state law, and I am willing to --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 237

of 341
238

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. DE GHETALDI: Well, it --

THE COURT: Listen, I'm willing to listen to your 

argument and the other counsels' arguments as to why I should 

grant relief from stay for all the reasons that you've stated. 

But the notion of supremacy or substantive California law isn't 

a persuasive argument, because the federal law stays the matter 

and relief from stay is not determined upon an underlying 

substantive right, because that's what everybody says. 

You have very sympathetic clients. I am sympathetic. 

I acknowledge them, their age, they're victims, they're all --

but the question is whether I should grant relief from stay. 

It's not mandated, because they have state law preferences. 

The only federal authority you cited is a Supreme Court case, 

which normally is a good authority, but only if it's on point. 

And the Illinois Revenue case is all about which rules of 

construction you have in tax laws. So there just is no 

authority that says the federal court is bound by the state 

substantive entitlements for priority. It doesn't exist; you 

have incited any authority.

MR. DE GHETALDI: I agree, Your Honor. I looked. I 

looked, but just because there's not authority and just because 

nobody has brought this issue to a court before does not mean 

that the issue should be dismissed out of hand.

THE COURT: No, it's not. The issue needs to be 

addressed exactly the way you and the others have addressed it. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 238

of 341
239

PG&E Corp., 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

I'm not saying your argument -- I'm saying that the collective 

group -- you, the gentleman that appeared Mr. Julian, and Ms. 

Dumas, everyone has made the point. This is not a new 

argument. I will grant relief from stay or not, but not 

because it's a statutory substantive right, because it doesn't 

make any difference. The question is whether there's cause for 

relief from stay.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay?

MR. DE GHETALDI: Okay. I understand the Court's 

point.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DE GHETALDI: But my point is, Your Honor, that if 

the Court denies relief from stay --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. DE GHETALDI: -- then the Court has eviscerated 

the state-court substantive right to a speedy trial for persons 

who are in danger of not being able to get any relief.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. DE GHETALDI: We've already had, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. DE GHETALDI: We've already had a handful of 

clients die.

THE COURT: I'm sure you have.

MR. DE GHETALDI: And so --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 239

of 341
240

PG&E Corp., 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: Mr. de Ghetaldi, I'm trying to make the 

point here that there are lots of arguments that suggest why 

relief from stay should be granted, but one of them that I 

don't think is persuasive is that there's a substantive right 

for relief from stay, because Congress didn't say those are the 

rules. Cause is one of those amorphous things, and you make a 

very persuasive argument for one of the factors. 

But I have to balance that against the balance of it, 

and I promise you I'm going to make my best judgment, and your 

argument make you lose the motion, because I don't know that 

you're going to lose the motion. I'm just going to take in 

exactly what we're spending the day on today, but this is where 

I have this point. 

And you made the point some time ago, when you said 

that you'd filed a brief on the substantive right. And I 

looked forward to getting it, and I read it, and I simply 

disagree that it's dispositive, but I don't question anything 

you've said about California law. I just don't think it 

translates to a matter of federal law you must have relief from 

stay.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Okay, and --

THE COURT: You've made a very good argument on why 

your client should have it, not that they are absolutely 

entitled to it. That's all.

MR. DE GHETALDI: And I've made the point, Your 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 240

of 341
241

PG&E Corp., 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

Honor --

THE COURT: You have.

MR. DE GHETALDI: -- that I think the Court is 

required to grant relief from stay, and I understand that 

there's a difference, but I've made the record, and I thank 

you.

THE COURT: There are a number of points in the 

bankruptcy law where the stay is vacated automatically, and 

they happen or never applied in the first place.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Understood.

THE COURT: But most of the law has it down to 

consider the factors, and -- anyway, let's leave it at that. I 

don't want to make it sound like I'm lecturing you. I want to 

make sure we're clear on what the grounds are, and I don't 

think it rises to a statutory entitlement, but that's not your 

point. I got it.

MR. DE GHETALDI: I always appreciate the continuing 

education opportunity, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, so do I from you.

MR. DE GHETALDI: Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. McCallen?

MR. MCCALLEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the 

record -- my apologies. For the record, Benjamin McCallen, 

Willkie Farr & Gallagher on behalf of the ad hoc subrogation 

group. Your Honor, I'll try to be direct and get directly to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 241

of 341
242

PG&E Corp., 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 arguments and try not to repeat anything that's been said 

so far. 

Your Honor, what I would start with is urge the Court 

to look at the lift-stay motion from a pure cost benefit 

perspective, and I want to highlight first what I think are the 

significant benefits that would come from lifting the stay.

As I see it, the first significant benefit is 

something we've talked a lot about, so I won't repeat it much, 

which is to say the valuable data point that the Court would 

gain with respect to liability on Tubbs. And that would --

Your Honor asked a couple of questions. You said, is that the 

end of it for Tubbs, was the first question, and would that 

impact other fires. And the short answer is, it is certainly 

very likely. I think that the jury's findings would bear upon 

other fire issues, for example --

THE COURT: To motivate people one way or the other, 

though, right?

MR. MCCALLEN: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: To motivate people to reexamine their 

positions, either stronger or --

MR. MCCALLEN: Absolutely, and I mean --

THE COURT: Stronger or weaker.

MR. MCCALLEN: But it's even more than that, Your 

Honor, because one specific legal issue I anticipate would go 

to a state-court jury would be negligence with respect to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 242

of 341
243

PG&E Corp., 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

PG&E's conduct around, I mentioned earlier, vegetation 

management --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- and things like that.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: That's going to be an issue for other 

fires. I think it would valuable for the Court to have that 

jury verdict on that issue.

And then on the issue of would it be dispositive of 

the claims that come -- once the jury makes a determination 

there? I think there's two ways of answering that. The short 

legal answer is from a collateral estoppel point of view. I 

think that both sides would have arguments that it is not, but 

as a practical matter, Your Honor, I think that no matter what 

the jury does on the Tubbs-related issues, we'd obviously have 

to be very careful in choosing our words when we came back to 

Your Honor, if we were suddenly saying --

THE COURT: Or back to another trial in state court, 

right? I mean a good trial lawyer who loses the first time 

might worry about losing the second time.

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, that's actually true, and I mean 

it --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- it's one of the interesting things, 

Your Honor, is as we've talked about the law in estimation is 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 243

of 341
244

PG&E Corp., 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

that the Court should do its best to predict what would happen 

absent a PG&E bankruptcy.

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. MCCALLEN: The interesting thing here is that an 

element of what would have happened absent bankruptcy is that 

PG&E face the threat of serial trials on this issue. 

They're --

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

MR. MCCALLEN: There is no res judicata or collateral 

estoppel as to plaintiffs, so they would just keep trying it 

and trying and trying it. So that's something you don't have 

to get into today, Your Honor, but it is an important point.

THE COURT: But, no, that's what I -- I mean, I assume 

that, but again people get beat over the head too many times, 

they finally come to the table and negotiate, too.

MR. MCCALLEN: Right. Of course. And this brings me 

to --

THE COURT: But plaintiffs who lose sometimes come to 

the table asking for less, so we're all the same.

MR. MCCALLEN: Of course. And our point is we're 

willing to try that. That's what we want. We want the chance 

to go to a jury and try --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- and try that.

The second significant benefit, Your Honor, is the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 244

of 341
245

PG&E Corp., 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

potential of lifting the stay, leading to a resolution of, if 

not all, many issues in this case. I'd imagine that Your 

Honor's -- among the many issues on your plate, you're probably 

trying to think of how can this case be pushed towards some 

sort of consensual resolution. 

I don't think there's any issue that is more likely to 

bring the people together to the bargaining table and to come 

up with a solution than either the threat of a jury trial or an 

actual jury verdict. So there is significant value to the case 

in that forum as well, our Honor. 

THE COURT: Well, yeah, I understand that's true. 

MR. MCCALLEN: And then --

THE COURT: I suspect there's also -- you know, 

there's been an estimation determination, might also be 

persuasive.

MR. MCCALLEN: Of course, Your Honor, I mean, I'm just 

saying I think there's significant value of that. And then --

THE COURT: No, I agree with that. I understand.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- on the other side of the ledger is 

what are the costs of doing it? And I would argue that there 

is no significant downside to lifting the stay, for this 

reason. Your Honor has heard a lot of arguments about when --

you know, how much time people need to address different 

issues. At the end of the day, I'd imagine when we get back in 

front of you at the end of August, we're going to have a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 245

of 341
246

PG&E Corp., 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

conversation about timing issues. 

THE COURT: Yeah, we are.

MR. MCCALLEN: And Your Honor's going to make some 

decisions about which issues it'll hear the district court and 

on what time frame. At the end of the day, you're going to 

make those decisions. Either the state-court jury trial 

happens in time such that Your Honor can use it as part of its 

decision-making process, or they don't. And if they don't, we 

will proceed in parallel. As Mr. Pitre said, we'll walk and 

chew gum at the same time -- easier for him to say than me. 

But we will proceed and be prepared to try those issues in this 

court. And if they don't get tried there, we'll do it here.

THE COURT: So you think that if I granted relief from 

stay for -- I think your group is the five that got added to 

the eight, right? 

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, no. To clarify, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Or, no. 

MR. MCCALLEN: So we --

THE COURT: That's right, you're not. Excuse me.

MR. MCCALLEN: Yeah.

THE COURT: That's right. You're from the 

subrogation; you don't have them. 

But -- so in effect, you -- well, what am I getting 

at? You want relief from stay for the same plaintiffs that the 

committee wants.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 246

of 341
247

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. MCCALLEN: That's correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Yeah, okay.

MR. MCCALLEN: We actually had joinders filed by the 

individual insurers --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- who insured those parties.

THE COURT: Yeah, again, pardon me for just not 

keeping track of all the players.

MR. MCCALLEN: No, it's actually --

THE COURT: I need a program with numbers.

MR. MCCALLEN: It's actually a really significant 

point, so I'm glad Your Honor raised it. And really, the 

argument is, it's the TCC preference plaintiffs --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- who the had the statutory right to 

trial.

THE COURT: Correct. Of course.

MR. MCCALLEN: As a matter of California law, those 

subrogation claims need to be brought together with the 

underlying claims. And so our motion, in effect, is to say, if 

Your Honor lifts the stay with respect to those plaintiffs, 

Your Honor should lift the stay with respect to my clients as 

well so that they can participate in those trials as well. 

Because, Your Honor, to the extent that you have a jury verdict 

on those particular fires and those particular plaintiffs, you 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 247

of 341
248

PG&E Corp., 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

don't want to have inconsistent adjudications.

THE COURT: So let's suppose that that happens, and 

you're the two groups with one fire, with one group of 

plaintiffs for two -- the two things you said -- is underway, 

or about to be underway, and we are at the point of having the 

estimation. What's the assignment for the judge to do? Wait 

until the jury verdict comes in, or pretend that it's not even 

going to happen, and go ahead and pick a number, rendering the 

jury verdict almost irrelevant. I mean, that's not a good way 

to do it either, is it?

MR. MCCALLEN: I suspect, Your Honor, that if we find 

ourselves in that situation, that it won't appear to be such a 

stark black and white decision as that. 

THE COURT: Well --

MR. MCCALLEN: In the sense that --

THE COURT: But why wouldn't it be? In other words, 

what do you tell the superior-court judge who says, good 

morning, we're going to have our jury trial today. And you 

say, you know what, Judge, the bankruptcy court just made an 

estimation of what the liability is.

MR. MCCALLEN: Well, here's something I would say, 

Your Honor, is that I suspect by the time -- let's assume Your 

Honor lifts the stay --

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. MCCALLEN: -- and the parties go back to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 248

of 341
249

PG&E Corp., 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

California superior court. I suspect at some point pretty soon 

after that were to happen, Your Honor would make a decision

about how you see these estimation proceedings going forward.

THE COURT: Well, no. That's something I intend to 

address in the next several days, not in the next several 

months. I mean, that's what I said to you this morning.

MR. MCCALLEN: Absolutely, Your Honor. And so that is 

information that could be taken back to the California superior 

court for its consideration, to under --

THE COURT: Well, how? I mean, what, to the superior 

court, would you please move this up even faster because the 

bankruptcy court is doing this other thing? Maybe that's what 

Mr. Pitre or Mr. Kelly --

MR. MCCALLEN: That is --

THE COURT: -- were thinking about, but I didn't 

understand that.

MR. MCCALLEN: No, absolutely, Your Honor. I would 

certainly go to the state court and say -- explain the 

circumstances, right? And Mr. Campora alluded to this too in 

terms of going there, seeking ex parte relief, getting in front 

of the judge even sooner than the typical sixteen days. And I 

would say -- you know, parenthetically, Your Honor, the debtors 

noted in their papers, they said, oh, you know, it's really 

complicated, Your Honor, these plaintiffs are not really 

preference plaintiffs, there's going to be an issue about 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 249

of 341
250

PG&E Corp., 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

whether that's granted. I was kind of flabbergasted by that, 

Your Honor, because I thought to myself, well, if Judge Montali 

lifts the stay saying that he thinks there's value in having a 

state jury-trial this issue, I would assume that we will be 

walking down to state court arm in arm with the debtors, on 

consent, on a preference motion, saying to the judge, let's get 

in front of you as soon as possible, here's what's going on in 

the bankruptcy court, to the state-court judge. 

Explain that, explain the timing issues. At that 

point maybe we have the benefit of Your Honor's ruling in terms 

of how you see estimation happening. And I actually would be 

optimistic that the state superior court would take those 

issues into consideration in setting a jury-trial date.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. Maybe. Again, I need 

your advice.

MR. MCCALLEN: And the final issue, Your Honor, that I 

want to hit on, and then I'll sit down, which is that with 

respect to the jury-trial issue and lifting the stay, you know, 

you've heard about the CAL FIRE report.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MCCALLEN: We previewed some of the evidentiary 

issues and some of the evidence that's been uncovered in our 

brief. In particular, Your Honor, with respect to the CAL FIRE 

report, that report does not place the area of origin near PG&E 

equipment, but we actually are in possession of compelling 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 250

of 341
251

PG&E Corp., 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

evidence of an area of origin that is on PG&E lines, caused by 

PG&E equipment. This includes the arc flash video that we --

THE COURT: Well, yeah, but why are we talking about 

this? That's part of your case. And if we go to trial on 

Tubbs here, that'll be part of the estimation, and if you get 

relief from stay, it'll be part of your presentation there. 

But I don't know that it's helpful now, because, you know, as 

soon as you say that, I'm going to ask -- the other side will 

tell me that's --

MR. MCCALLEN: Of course. And my only issue on that, 

Your Honor, and I won't belabor it, is obviously that's an 

issue which under state law, absent bankruptcy, would be 

decided by a jury of Californians.

THE COURT: Of course. No question. 

MR. MCCALLEN: And it's --

THE COURT: No question.

MR. MCCALLEN: There are going to be significant 

factual issues there, Your Honor. And under the circumstances, 

we think that the debtors' plan to foist that solely upon the 

courts without the guidance of any California juries is not the 

prudent way to go, and that it would be good to have that data 

point. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, is that Mr. Singleton? You're back?

MR. SINGLETON: Thank you, Your Honor. Just one 

minute. I don't have anything to add substantively; I thought 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 251

of 341
252

PG&E Corp., 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

my colleagues did an excellent job. I just wanted to make 

sure, because the numbers have been -- there was eight, there 

was thirteen. We had a motion for joinder where we had five, 

and I just wanted to make sure that --

THE COURT: But they're all statutory preference, 

right?

MR. SINGLETON: Exactly. I just wanted to make sure 

they would be included in whatever the ruling was, to lift the 

stay or not lift the stay. 

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Singleton, as I've said 

oftentimes, I find it very difficult to keep up with so many 

things changing all the time, but I'm doing my best. And 

clearly, if I am persuaded that the people who are entitled to 

the kind of priority that the other counsel were talking 

about -- and you have made a motion, I will do my best to 

remember to get them in right. Or if I don't, I assume you'll 

make sure that I get it right.

MR. SINGLETON: Your Honor, I assumed that was the 

case. I know you have a lot to keep track of. I just wanted 

to raise that point. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Okay. All right, anyone else want to be 

heard for the moving -- or, the opening portion of the case?

MR. BRILLIANT: Good afternoon, Your Honor, I'll be 

brief. Allan Brilliant, on behalf of State Farm Mutual 

Insurance Company.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 252

of 341
253

PG&E Corp., 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: Oh, yes, Mr. Brilliant, I did see a brief 

from you. And I thank you for coming.

MR. BRILLIANT: Yes, Your Honor. I'll be very quick, 

Your Honor. I think one of the points -- I think the key point 

here is, we believe that lifting the stay will in all 

circumstances be of benefit to the Court. We also think it's 

going to be of benefit to the process.

I think, you know, as counsel said, the key here is to 

have a result from Your Honor and from the whole bankruptcy 

process which is fair and which people accept as being done 

with due process and that takes care of all the appropriate 

rights of all the parties. State Farm feels very strongly that 

its insureds, many of which -- a couple of which are parties in

the motion to lift stay, should have the right to a jury trial. 

We feel very strongly that CAL FIRE was wrong with respect to 

the report. We believe there is liability here. We think that 

the best trier of fact for this issue would in fact be a jury; 

it is the type of causation issues that juries deal with all 

the time, with no disrespect to Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, it's not. It's not respect. 

MR. BRILLIANT: It's not what Your Honor does.

THE COURT: It's no secret, it's a different job. I 

understand.

MR. BRILLIANT: And, Your Honor, we don't --

THE COURT: I'm not offended.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 253

of 341
254

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. BRILLIANT: Yeah, and we don't believe, Your 

Honor, that it will delay things. We think that Your Honor has 

a lot of tools in your toolbox to deal with this. Your Honor, 

in your motion to lift the stay -- in your order requiring the 

lifting of the stay, you could put, you know, requirements on 

the state court if you wanted to.

THE COURT: Well, see, that's what I was talking to 

the other folks about. I don't have this -- I have this notion 

that we need to have our lines drawn. I mean, the suggestion 

for some cases, maybe there should be some communication, maybe 

that's okay, and I even admitted to having done it a couple 

times. But to start telling another court how to do things is 

not --

MR. BRILLIANT: I'm not suggesting --

THE COURT: -- not right.

MR. BRILLIANT: I'm not suggesting that Your Honor say 

how to do things, but Your Honor may want to tell them when it 

needs to be done. You could -- and you don't even have to make 

it as an order, Your Honor. Obviously --

THE COURT: I'll tell them about the estimation 

process and how --

MR. BRILLIANT: Well --

THE COURT: -- we can -- and they ought to try it over 

there.

MR. BRILLIANT: Well, you could -- but I think, Your 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 254

of 341
255

PG&E Corp., 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

Honor, what you could do is you could say in the order that 

you're having an estimation process. As part of the estimation 

process you're lifting the stay, you know, with the 

expectation, or the hope, however Your Honor wanted to do it.

I understand you don't want to put your finger on the 

scale or tell another judge what they have to do, but you could 

give the court some guidance as to what you hope will be done 

and what it would be used for.

And then the last thing, Your Honor, to answer a 

question you asked to the ad hoc subrogation group's counsel. 

I think no matter what happens, the jury trial would not be a 

waste, even if for some reason it was delayed and it took a 

little bit longer than Your Honor had hoped. And I don't 

believe that would be the case. I agree with Mr. McCallen that 

by the time, in this case, you did whatever discovery needed to 

be done, and the time you dealt with all the other issues you 

were -- needed to do, by that time you'd probably have -- the 

jury trial would be up and running in any event. And so I 

don't think there would be loss of time. 

But to the extent there was and Your Honor had to go 

forward and do an estimation without the benefit of that, you'd 

have certain parties who would have gone to a jury trial, they 

would have gotten a verdict, and that would just determine what 

they got out of whatever pot was created, you know, under a 

plan of reorganization. So I don't think it would in any 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 255

of 341
256

PG&E Corp., 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

circumstances be a waste of the time of the state court or the 

jury or that process. 

But, Your Honor, what I would say is, at the end of 

the day here, you want to have a process that not only is just 

and is fair, but appears to all the parties, including the 

individual plaintiffs, that it was a fair process, that they 

got their chance in front of a jury and that they got a 

verdict.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Brilliant.

MR. BRILLIANT: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm going to take a break now. And we 

didn't schedule this exactly, but people need -- we've been 

going for nearly an hour-and-a-half. I'll be back in about ten 

minutes, and we'll go to the other side. 

And you have an hour, Mr. Orsini, that was the deal we 

had, and we'll stick with that, okay? 

See you in ten minutes everyone.

(Recess from 3:57 p.m., until 4:13 p.m.)

THE COURT: Okay. Please be seated. Back to 

business.

Mr. Orsini.

MR. ORSINI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the 

record, Kevin Orsini, Cravath, Swaine & Moore on behalf of the 

debtors.

There was one word that was strikingly absent from 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 256

of 341
257

PG&E Corp., 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

every presentation the Court just heard. That word is Curtis. 

It's the case that actually lays out the factors that are 

relevant to the Court's assessment of whether or not to lift 

the stay. Instead, what the Court heard quite a bit about was 

from a series of state-court trial lawyers, one of which I 

apparently am not, that they would --

THE COURT: Well, some --

MR. ORSINI: -- prefer --

THE COURT: -- other state, I guess.

MR. ORSINI: They would prefer that the Tubbs issue be 

tried in a state court. There were articulated concerns about 

this Court's ability to get it right, and there was the 

suggestion that unless we send this to state court, people 

won't believe that this was a fair process, and it won't see 

the light of day.

Well, this is not a dark room, Your Honor. You know 

far better than I that the light of day shines brightly in 

here. We have Mr. Morris from the San Francisco Chronicle who 

chronicles everything we say every day that we're here. 

Congress has made a determination that the way to resolve these 

issues, particularly when you have as many stakeholders here as 

you do, Your Honor, as you noted all of whom are entitled to 

equal rights, is to deal with this through the estimation 

process. And so they bear a heavy burden to establish that we 

should override that congressional intent and we should send 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 257

of 341
258

PG&E Corp., 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

this case back down to the state-court system. And, Your 

Honor, I respectfully submit they haven't come close to meeting 

that burden. 

So let's talk about why. There's really two reasons. 

One, can it be done in time to matter, and two, if it is done 

in time, what is the ultimate result of it? What does it get 

us? 

Number one, can it be done in time. They've argued 

that in the best of worlds, we have a jury verdict on causation 

in Tubbs some time in February.

THE COURT: No, I don't think that's fair. I think 

they said that's if the 120 days are maxed, that it could be a 

shorter period of time.

MR. ORSINI: Your Honor, there's a lot of 

inconsistency in the arguments here. We heard all the 

arguments around estimation, that they need months of discovery 

in order to move forward with these cases, that I've been 

stymieing their efforts to get discovery, Mr. Singleton to the 

extreme of saying he needs six to nine months to prepare 

anything for trial.

I think the idea that we're going to wind up in a 

trial that begins in state court earlier than January, there's 

absolutely no record to support that.

THE COURT: I'm only focusing on the 120 can be less, 

based upon what --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 258

of 341
259

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: Right. And --

THE COURT: -- they all said about the statutory 

preference, that's all.

MR. ORSINI: And it can be, but it won't be. There's 

no reason to believe that it will be. And we certainly can't 

wager a case of this significance, with this many stakeholders 

on the idea that we'll start earlier.

The other reality is they're suggesting that the trial 

can be done in four weeks. Your Honor, that's a complete 

about-face from the positions that they took in state court 

before these bankruptcy proceedings. I understand why they're 

saying it now, but it's just not true, okay? 

You heard a couple of them stand up here and say, this 

case is more complex than the Atlas fire case. You know what 

they estimated the Atlas fire case would take in state court? 

Eight to twelve weeks. How we've suddenly gone from eight to 

twelve weeks, for what is apparently a less complicated trial, 

to four weeks to try the Tubbs case makes no sense. This case 

cannot be tried in a state-court system in four weeks; it's 

just not going to happen. So best --

THE COURT: So are you telling me, suppose you were 

before the superior-court judge and she says to you, okay, 

what's the trial time? You're going to tell her that, from the 

defense side, you're going to -- your side's going take 

whatever, take your portion of twelve weeks?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 259

of 341
260

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: I'm going to tell the judge that it's 

going to take a total of eight to twelve weeks, that we believe 

our side of the case will be four to six weeks. Absolutely, 

Your Honor. Which is exactly what we told the state court 

before.

THE COURT: But the suggestion was made that the 

plaintiffs could ask the state judge to bifurcate the statecourt process, right?

MR. ORSINI: Even if we bifurcate the state-court 

process, Your Honor, the causation issue, the liability issue 

is still going to take a minimum of a month; minimum of a 

month. And I believe that's what Mr. Kelly said. I actually 

believe it's going to take longer than that.

The problem -- the real problem, Your Honor, is we 

just don't know and we just can't know. Now, I know what I'm 

going to hear when the trial lawyers stand back up here. 

They're going to say, there's PG&E trying to delay things 

again. No, Your Honor, we have a fiduciary obligation to our 

stakeholders to actually try to get it right. And if we're in 

a state-court system, we can't have an abbreviated trial 

because it's a state-court trial, not an estimation process. 

Estimation absolutely can be done faster, as Your 

Honor said, for all the reasons Your Honor said. But the 

reality is we're not going to get done with a trial, even on 

causation, until, in the best of all worlds, February.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 260

of 341
261

PG&E Corp., 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: Well, what happens if you are down before 

the superior court right after Labor Day and Mr. Pitre or Mr. 

Kelly, or whichever gentleman gets the nod, tells the judge, we 

want to go to trial in thirty day, thirty-five, forty-five 

days? I mean, the judge would have that discretion, right?

MR. ORSINI: Sure, the judge would have that 

discretion.

First of all, if we're going to trial against twenty 

preference plaintiffs, there's a lot of discovery we have to 

take of these individuals because it will involve the 

liquidation of their claims, all of which is pushed out until 

the actual beginning of trial.

THE COURT: Well, only if it's not bifurcated.

MR. ORSINI: Well, even if it's bifurcated, we still 

need to take that discovery, number one.

THE COURT: Well, yeah. But maybe not on liability.

MR. ORSINI: Well, there's still --

THE COURT: If the lawyers say to the superior-court 

judge, got to be in tandem here with the bankruptcy court, so 

we would like to split this down to a liability versus damages, 

and we would like you to try to liability case.

MR. ORSINI: And, Your Honor, I was --

THE COURT: I mean, that could be. I mean --

MR. ORSINI: It could be.

THE COURT: -- I don't pretend to know the state 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 261

of 341
262

PG&E Corp., 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

procedure like these folks do, but if it could be, then you 

don't have to be taking discovery of the individual plans, 

right?

MR. ORSINI: Yeah. Your Honor, a lot of things could 

be.

THE COURT: Yeah, right.

MR. ORSINI: I think the reality is, we can't afford 

to roll the dice. We certainly can't afford Mr. McCallen's 

approach of, well, we'll see what happens. If we get there, 

maybe you call up the state-court judge and you tell him to 

move faster, which obviously Your Honor's not going to do, or 

we spend all of this time doing state-court discovery, getting 

ready for a trial, and it turns out at the last minute we pull 

the plug and we do estimation here.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ORSINI: The stakeholders can't afford that.

THE COURT: -- let me remind you that discovery 

doesn't have a state or federal label on it. Discovery's 

discovery and facts are facts.

MR. ORSINI: I do understand that Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: But Your Honor also made clear earlier 

today that there's a difference between the discovery that's 

necessary for an abbreviated --

THE COURT: No, that's true.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 262

of 341
263

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: -- estimation hearing --

THE COURT: That's true.

MR. ORSINI: -- versus a state-court jury trial, which 

is what they're asking for.

THE COURT: And we're all on the same page with that.

MR. ORSINI: And so, Your Honor, all I can go on is 

based upon what they said in their pleadings and what they've 

said up here, right? What they said in their pleading is, they 

believe the trial will start in January. Right? That's what 

they said in their papers to the Court. I didn't hear anything 

different here today. I heard maybe it could be sooner, okay?

THE COURT: Well, I think that --

MR. ORSINI: They're saying maybe if PG&E's --

THE COURT: I think they said it has to start by 

January if they start the clock running immediately. If I 

said, I'll grant relief from stay a month from now, by 

definition the statutory limits are another month.

MR. ORSINI: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: But I don't hear any guarantees from any 

of these plaintiffs that we're going to have that trial 

starting in thirty days or sixty days. They can't give you 

those guarantees. Those guarantees are impossible, okay?

And as it relates to the preference, we have an 

obligation to make sure that we're going to trial against 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 263

of 341
264

PG&E Corp., 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

people who actually have a statutory preference right.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ORSINI: And the bigger issue, Your Honor, is --

and this gets to even if we can get it done in time, which we 

can't; Mr. Kornberg said January. We can't be having the jury 

verdict in February, okay? 

The question of what do we get at the end of the day. 

What we get at the end of the day is a single, unrepresentative 

test case. There were extensive procedures worked out in state 

court to establish what type of plaintiffs would go to trial in 

what type of case.

THE COURT: But that was the Karnow decision that had 

to do with statutory preference.

MR. ORSINI: Well, first of all, there was the Karnow 

decision that had to do with statutory preference; there was 

also a stipulated order between the parties that they would 

identify the right plaintiffs to go to trial because a 

preference trial is not representative. Those aren't just my 

words, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Yeah, no, I -- okay. Do they say it?

MR. ORSINI: They said that, okay? In state court, as 

Your Honor may have picked up on, there's a little bit of a 

divide between Mr. Singleton's firm and some of the other firms 

here. And Mr. Singleton, in the state-court action, sought to 

jump to the head of the line with his own preference. And 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 264

of 341
265

PG&E Corp., 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

here's what Mr. Pitre said.

Okay, Mr. Pitre said to the state court that we needed 

to make sure we had representative test cases and that -- this 

is a direct quote -- "If all we did was try one case, and it 

was a preference case, it teaches us nothing." Those are Mr. 

Pitre's words. I agree with those words.

If we find ourselves in a scenario where we get to the 

end of a jury trial on causation or a bifurcated jury trial, 

and I win -- which I will because CAL FIRE has already 

concluded that we did not start that fire; the only fire where 

they said that.

THE COURT: Talk a little less loud. I'll turn you 

down here. 

MR. ORSINI: Oh, sorry, Your Honor. Yes. I don't 

think anybody ever has a hard time hearing me.

THE COURT: Well, no.

MR. ORSINI: If we win that trial, do you think these 

claimants are going to come back here and say, you're right, 

Your Honor, we lost, so let's estimate it zero?

THE COURT: Well, but that's bellwether notion, right?

MR. ORSINI: Right. But bellwether isn't a single, 

unrepresentative trial.

THE COURT: But wait a minute. I guess what I'm 

missing here is if your client was negligent, it was negligent 

to a twenty-five-year-old marathon runner and an eighty-fiveCase: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 265

of 341
266

PG&E Corp., 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

year-old person who is in a rest home. You're just as 

negligent. So what difference does it make, the 

characteristics and the physical condition of the plaintiff? I 

can't imagine anything.

MR. ORSINI: It makes a tremendous difference --

THE COURT: At least in --

MR. ORSINI: -- Your Honor, to the jury pool. It 

absolutely does. 

THE COURT: Well, it may to the --

MR. ORSINI: Which is exactly why their strategy is 

tee up --

THE COURT: It may to the jury pool, but if the issue 

is was your client negligent --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- I like to think that this case doesn't 

turn on which jury pool is it, but I have trouble understanding 

why that isn't very informative, to the same extent, by the 

way, if a jury, on behalf of a bunch of eighty-five-year-old 

people who are in rest homes, finds that your client was not 

negligent.

MR. ORSINI: There's a reason, Your Honor --

THE COURT: There's a message there.

MR. ORSINI: There's a reason, Your Honor, that the 

state court required a system that had a representative crosssection of the plaintiffs --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 266

of 341
267

PG&E Corp., 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: But, Mr. Orsini --

MR. ORSINI: -- and not just --

THE COURT: -- there was no bankruptcy then.

MR. ORSINI: I understand that, but --

THE COURT: And --

MR. ORSINI: -- it doesn't change the --

THE COURT: -- Judge Karnow never heard of Section 

502.

MR. ORSINI: But it does not change the fact -- it 

does not change the fact that the reason that the Court 

required that representative cross-section was so that it would 

be a representative test case, point number one.

Point number two. Point number two is, a single jury 

verdict is not how mass tort bellwether cases work, even in 

bankruptcy. And if you look at the GM ignition switch case, 

for instance, bankruptcy litigation, the Court did send cases 

to bellwether trials. There were, in my understanding, close 

to if not more than twenty of them. You need multiple data 

points for them to actually be informative as to where you're 

going to wind up.

THE COURT: Be careful what you ask for; you might get 

twenty more motions for relief from stay there.

MR. ORSINI: We might, Your Honor, which again, is 

impossible in the current circumstances, and that's the 

problem. We have to deal with what we're facing. What we're 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 267

of 341
268

PG&E Corp., 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

facing is, we know we have to go to estimation. What we're 

facing is, we know we have to get this done quickly. The 

proposal that they've put forth is to go to a single jury trial 

that is not going to be done in time, that even if -- it 

doesn't matter who wins, we're going to be back in an 

estimation hearing before Your Honor. And whomever lost --

THE COURT: Well, but -- stop there for a minute. You 

don't think at that estimation trial, or it's not a trial --

well, the proceeding, it's an --

MR. ORSINI: Hearing

THE COURT: -- estimation -- you don't think that one 

side or the other would get before me what the verdict was --

MR. ORSINI: No, of course they would.

THE COURT: -- across the street?

MR. ORSINI: Of course they would.

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. ORSINI: And then the other side would explain to 

you why the jury got it wrong: because the judge made this 

erroneous finding with respect to this piece of evidence; 

because this particular pre-trial ruling went the wrong way. 

And we're both going to be back here, whomever loses, arguing 

all of that to you, or whomever the judicial officer is.

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Orsini, I don't think I knew 

you before you came into this case, but in my prior -- not even 

my prior life. In this life, I've worked as an appellate judge 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 268

of 341
269

PG&E Corp., 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

for ten years, and we had a rule in the Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel that the first rule of appellate practice is win at 

trial.

MR. ORSINI: I agree with that.

THE COURT: And so --

MR. ORSINI: I'm a trial lawyer; I definitely agree 

with that, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ORSINI: I definitely agree with that.

THE COURT: So I'll say it again: the first rule of 

appellate practice is win at trial. So I'll have a variation 

on that: the first rule of estimation trials is have won at 

trial. Right?

MR. ORSINI: Absolutely, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So if we're in here on our 502 

estimation --

MR. ORSINI: Um-hum.

THE COURT: -- and Mr. Pitre is smoking a big cigar 

and says, I just brought in a jury verdict for X million 

dollars with my test plaintiff, I'm not going to ignore that.

MR. ORSINI: No, I know you're not going to ignore it, 

but we're going to be in March.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: Okay? At which point --

THE COURT: I understand that point.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 269

of 341
270

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. ORSINI: -- we're going to still have to have an 

estimation hearing.

THE COURT: Um-hum. I agree. I agree.

MR. ORSINI: Okay. I also -- I don't understand what 

the subrogation position is because we heard Mr. McCallen 

earlier this morning say that we couldn't phase Tubbs out from 

the other fires because they're too interrelated, and there are 

too many overlapping issues. Then he stands up and says that 

you ought to separate Tubbs out and send it to an entirely 

different court to be tried. So the subro position is 

incoherent. 

And the other point, Your Honor, with respect to the 

subrogation insurers is, we could object to their claims in 

this court or in the estimation hearing, as Mr. Feldman 

conceded the other day. You absolutely have the ability to do 

the thumbs up, thumbs down.

Look, the basic point, Your Honor, is, is some data 

better than no data? Perhaps, okay. However, you have to look 

at the costs that come with it. The cost of taking out of this 

Court's hands one of the most critical gatekeeping issues in 

this case, setting it on a schedule that might actually be a 

bridge to nowhere because we can't get it done in time that 

matters, to then still have to come back and do an estimation 

hearing regardless of who wins on that fire before this Court, 

all in a scenario in which we're supposed to be done with this 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 270

of 341
271

PG&E Corp., 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

by January.

We can't afford to make these gambles. And candidly, 

Your Honor, we have enough issues that we need to be dealing 

with that we should all be dealing with those issues in this 

court. We have the absolute confidence that the Court has the 

statutory ability, the bankruptcy tool kit to estimate the 

Tubbs claims, that they will see the light of day in this 

Court, that the stakeholders will be prejudiced, not 

benefitted, by sending us back to the state-court system for 

this one, unrepresentative test trial, and that ultimately, the 

jury-trial right remains preserved for cases post-confirmation, 

where they can seek remedy from the trust.

If the Court has no further questions, I don't think I 

have any other points to add.

THE COURT: Well, is anyone else going to join you 

today for this argument? Because I reserved that other time 

for, well --

MR. BRAY: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Committee?

MR. BRAY: -- might I have a minute?

Yeah. Well, I think -- look, I got -- Mr. Orsini was 

given an hour.

MR. BRAY: Well, I sure won't use the rest of that. 

Gregory Bray, Your Honor, Milbank. 

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 271

of 341
272

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. BRAY: Counsel for the UCC. 

THE COURT: Make your argument. We'll come back in 

about forty-five minutes. You keep going with the argument.

MR. BRAY: There we go. Perfect.

Your Honor, I'm not going to repeat what Mr. Orsini 

said or what was in our papers. As I listen to what was argued 

to you by the movants, I wrote down that they're asking you to 

trust in a process with another court you will have little or 

no control over and could seriously jeopardize your ability to 

confirm what may be your plan of reorganization by the end of 

June.

THE COURT: Not my plan.

MR. BRAY: Well, I say "yours", the one that you will 

be asked to confirm. In other words, it's this Court's 

jurisdiction and right to confirm a plan.

THE COURT: But look, if this bankruptcy had been 

filed and there already was a trial scheduled for --

MR. BRAY: Right.

THE COURT: -- August, maybe I would have granted 

relief from stay. I mean, I denied motions for some other 

matters, but they were -- you know what they were. They were 

discrete matters, and I'll probably be asked again to grant 

relief. 

But you want me to presume that if this so-called test 

case would have been tried some months ago that I would have 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 272

of 341
273

PG&E Corp., 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

not granted relief from stay?

MR. BRAY: But --

THE COURT: I don't know.

MR. BRAY: -- I agree that might have been different. 

Right.

MR. BRAY: But that's not the situation. 

THE COURT: No. It's not the situation now.

MR. BRAY: We're not even close to that. In fact, 

what I've heard, it's the most important case or element of 

this process, and it just struck me that this Court, for the 

sake of consistency -- and you want to talk about due process 

or fair process or whatever process -- that if it's that 

important, that it really should be this Court as part of the 

estimation process it sets, in fairness to the rest of the 

creditors, in fairness to the other wildfire claimants, to 

essentially have the same process govern or dictate the 

allowance of those claims, of this claim in particular, of any 

claim --

THE COURT: You know, yesterday --

MR. BRAY: -- because it is so important.

THE COURT: -- yesterday morning, when I made opening 

remarks, I said that the bankruptcy lawyers use words that 

nobody's ever heard of before, and certainly estimation's one 

of them --

MR. BRAY: Correct.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 273

of 341
274

PG&E Corp., 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: -- as even our colleagues in the state 

court never heard of the concept very much.

MR. BRAY: And they probably hope they never do again.

THE COURT: Yeah. And so it's hard for me to tell Ms. 

Dumas and Mr. Julian, tell your committee and tell your victims 

due process here doesn't mean a jury trial and doesn't mean 

tell it to your peers and doesn't mean, even, the full day in 

court. It means whatever the bankruptcy judge decides is 

sufficient to do this magical guess.

MR. BRAY: Correct. Based upon a statutory 

authority --

THE COURT: Well, based upon the --

MR. BRAY: -- Congress has cloaked you with.

THE COURT: I know.

MR. BRAY: And even the comment about the jury trial, 

Your Honor, as I heard it, no one's being deprived of a jury 

trial with respect to their individual claim. I thought the --

THE COURT: No, Mr. Julian --

MR. BRAY: -- debtor was clear about that.

THE COURT: -- Mr. Julian made it -- I think he

responded, and --

MR. BRAY: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- that was the answer that I heard.

MR. BRAY: They'll still have their day. You're just 

being asked to basically -- what goes into the trust, not to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 274

of 341
275

PG&E Corp., 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

decide anyone's particular claim.

My only point being this: one of the first 

appearances I made before was on the stay motion and it was and 

remains the committee's view that this Court has the statutory 

authority and now the experience with this case and is, in our 

judgment, best-suited to decide the allowance of claims.

THE COURT: But bankruptcy judges and federal district 

courts perhaps less, we are -- sometimes we do let something go 

elsewhere. I mean, perfect example is in a fraud case that's 

got multiple parties. And all we have to do is to do 

dischargeability. So go back, finish that matter over there, 

come back --

MR. BRAY: But that's not this case.

THE COURT: -- and then I'll tell you -- I mean, 

just -- but take the concept. The concept is, well, sure, 

there is some reasons why we can't handle the case via third 

parties, or whatever, but sometimes it's, they know how to do 

that better. They're more experienced. And particularly if 

there's a jury issue, because you don't have that issue. And 

we're not talking about --

MR. BRAY: I understand.

THE COURT: -- the bankruptcy judge, we're talking 

about whether it's related or core or noncore.

MR. BRAY: These issues, the estimation of these 

claims, is essentially why the company filed for bankruptcy, in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 275

of 341
276

PG&E Corp., 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

a nutshell. 

THE COURT: No, I -- well.

MR. BRAY: It is the central issue.

THE COURT: Well, I think it would be more accurate to 

say the company filed bankruptcy because of the fires.

MR. BRAY: Yes. But to resolve -- the company chose 

this forum to resolve those claims, and this Court has the 

unique statutory ability to act and to do that in a fair and 

efficient fashion and still try to satisfy and meet the June 30 

deadline. I was struck --

THE COURT: Well, you're kind of mixing apples and 

oranges here. There was no June 30th deadline in January.

MR. BRAY: But there is.

THE COURT: Yeah, I know. But the company had two 

choices on January 29th in the morning or at midnight: file 

the bankruptcy, or face whatever was the next --

MR. BRAY: That's right.

THE COURT: -- the next mess in --

MR. BRAY: And the company chose this forum.

THE COURT: Yeah, I understand.

MR. BRAY: Yeah.

THE COURT: But it took it with all of its warts and 

benefits, and obviously the toolbox. There's a 502 tool --

MR. BRAY: Right.

THE COURT: -- in the toolbox.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 276

of 341
277

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. BRAY: Which vests this Court with the right to 

decide and estimate claims of this type in order to aid the 

Court in confirmation of a plan that we all know we should do 

everything we can to do by the end of June. 

I understand that the movants almost express disdain 

for 1054. I don't think anyone else shares that view, 

including the Court. And I think it's incumbent upon all of us 

to try to meet that deadline.

THE COURT: What do you think happens if -- again, I 

go back to you because each time you or your colleagues from 

your firm make the argument, I enjoy the -- well, I don't mean 

to say that -- I'm hearing it from someone who has a lesser 

stake in terms of the outcome on the plan battles, unless I let 

exclusivity terminate and somebody comes up with a way of 

impairing your class --

MR. BRAY: Right.

THE COURT: -- cutting them down. But what I'm 

getting it is -- well, I'm not sure what I'm getting at. 

But yeah, okay. So what happens if the deadline is 

missed, do you think? And I don't want to know what you tell 

your clients, but what do you tell your clients about what 

happens if the 1054 deadline is not met?

MR. BRAY: I think we don't have an investment grade 

company. It's going to be very difficult to exit bankruptcy, 

and all the creditors will lose.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 277

of 341
278

PG&E Corp., 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 there won't be a distribution.

MR. BRAY: For anyone.

THE COURT: Well, there won't --

MR. BRAY: The entire complexion of this case --

THE COURT: -- be a distribution any --

MR. BRAY: -- will change.

THE COURT: -- earlier than there might have been; 

isn't that true? Is that a fair way to say it, or is that 

wrong? In other words, we heard that --

MR. BRAY: It will delay everything.

THE COURT: Yes. We heard this morning that maybe by 

the end of the year, if we have a confirmed plan consistent 

with 1054, there will be a distribution to the victims and 

other creditors. And I gather your view is that you can't 

predict what kind of distribution would occur if there's no 

1054?

MR. BRAY: No. I agree with that. My prediction 

would be it would be much longer, it would entirely change the 

complexion of this case. The prospects and the means of 

raising the capital you'll need to exit bankruptcy would be 

dramatically changed. You could cross your fingers and hope 

that the legislature moves the date, but I think that that --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. BRAY: -- would be a perilous risk to take.

THE COURT: What's the -- from your point of view, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 278

of 341
279

PG&E Corp., 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

though, again, from the unsecured creditors' committee point of 

view, what's the disadvantage from taking the chance to let the 

trial go forward to see what happens? In other words, sure, 

Mr. Orsini said about all these horrible things that will 

happen, but what if we get through all those horribles and 

there is a jury verdict, one way or the other? I don't have to 

say an up or down; there is one. Doesn't that change the 

dynamics of the plan process and the outcome?

MR. BRAY: I think it's going to be in the eye of the 

beholder, Your Honor. Yes, it certainly is going to change the 

outcome, but I think its significance will depend upon in whose 

favor it changed.

THE COURT: Right. It will certainly change -- if I'm 

supposed to make the estimation judgment and I haven't made it 

by then, it can't be ignored; it's another data point.

MR. BRAY: But it is a data point, but there are --

for example, I heard some argument that we should parallel 

track. 

THE COURT: Well, that's --

MR. BRAY: I heard another argument that we should do 

it in a linear fashion.

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. BRAY: I don't even know what the procedure would 

be if you're going to wait to begin estimation until, say, 

February and --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 279

of 341
280

PG&E Corp., 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: Well, again, I'm --

MR. BRAY: -- we have a June deadline. That's --

THE COURT: -- keeping the state-court lawyers -- I'm 

getting them mixed up from my notes, but certainly one 

suggestion was made that the --

MR. BRAY: Right, we run parallel tracks.

THE COURT: Well, for the five of the largest fires: 

Nuns, Atlas, Sequoia? No, was that it? They know which ones. 

Camp.

MR. BRAY: Right. 

THE COURT: I mean, that's like bellwether spades, I 

mean, in square, right?

MR. BRAY: So why can't we estimate those here?

THE COURT: Yeah, right.

MR. BRAY: And why can't we estimate Tubbs with it? 

Pick the five, plus Tubbs, and estimate those. I mean, there 

are all sorts of ways you can manage the process to give you 

the comfort that I think you're looking for that you're doing 

the right thing. I understand that that's the paramount issue 

here, and we share the concern, but there are ways to do it 

where you keep control of the process.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to keep getting you to 

answer my questions because, for the moment, you still are in 

that in-between. Let's say that I commit -- or my Article III 

colleagues commit, if there is going to be one -- to be fair, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 280

of 341
281

PG&E Corp., 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

which of course goes without saying, but does it appear fair? 

Does it appear fair if there isn't a jury and there isn't 

somebody who gets to hear the actual witnesses and the actual 

victims tell how they went through these kinds of things that 

jurors would listen to and would respond to? 

MR. BRAY: But we're not taking that --

THE COURT: I mean, it's not to say that I wouldn't.

MR. BRAY: -- right away, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's not to say that I or a judge sitting 

at an estimation trial wouldn't. The question is whether it 

would even be part of the plan, part of the estimation trial? 

Certainly on a trial over at the superior court with 

twelve jurors sitting and listening to some of these victims 

talk about what they went through is important.

MR. BRAY: I'm not going to -- certainly that's a key 

element of our judicial system; I'm not going to deny that. 

But I'll go back to the point that Congress, in this situation, 

has vested you with the statutory authority, using the word 

"shall", as you pointed out, estimate. Now, I know you can 

still lift the stay and go around that, but equally important 

is the bankruptcy process and the fair but swift resolution of 

the claims in the entirety to try to meet the 6/30 deadline.

And again, it's not that there won't be a jury trial. 

Let's just say whatever -- for sake of argument, there's a 

trust a there's money in it; the individual wildfire victims 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 281

of 341
282

PG&E Corp., 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

still have the right to a jury trial. The jury can hear their 

story. The jury can hear the harm that's befallen them. And 

it will go to the most serious issue, which is damages. And 

when the jury hears that, if they award the damages, then the 

trust is there, hopefully, to fund that.

THE COURT: But the jury won't be told what the 

fraction, the denominator and the numerator are, to make the --

MR. BRAY: I don't know that. I don't know the answer 

to that.

THE COURT: But look, don't you also know that there's 

a chance that it won't be a hundred cents on the dollar? It 

will be a percentage of a fund that maybe it was 

underestimated.

MR. BRAY: And I think you're best situated to make 

that decision after you've heard all the evidence with respect 

to liability and damages. For that reason --

THE COURT: I know, but --

MR. BRAY: -- I actually think it's important --

THE COURT: -- I'm not debating with you as though 

you're my opponent. You're not. 

MR. BRAY: No, no. I understand.

THE COURT: We're just having --

MR. BRAY: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- a discussion about how this thing 

works. And how it works is it's good news, bad news as I say. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 282

of 341
283

PG&E Corp., 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

You've got your jury; you've got twelve of your peers. And you 

can come in with a twenty-million-dollar judgment and feel good 

about it until your lawyer tells you that you're going to get a 

tenth of that because there is only -- because of the limited 

funds.

Now, maybe your lawyer would have told you ahead of 

time that for a sure thing and for a stipulated amount or the 

matrix, whatever, you're going to get more, and now you're 

getting less.

MR. BRAY: But I don't think even the process that the 

plaintiffs would use would change that. You're still going to 

be asked at the end of the day to -- even if you have that 

marker, you're still going to be asked to extrapolate from that 

marker a number. And so no matter what we do, I think that we 

are all going to be asking you to make that decision.

If it were me, I certainly don't -- I would want to 

hear all the evidence. I would want to hear liability and 

damages.

THE COURT: Well, wait a minute.

MR. BRAY: I would want to hear --

THE COURT: You mean it if were you --

MR. BRAY: -- everything, if I was going to set the 

pot.

THE COURT: You mean in my position?

MR. BRAY: Yes.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 283

of 341
284

PG&E Corp., 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: Oh. Well, yeah. Okay. But I don't --

but then we're back to, well, then, let's not have an 

estimation; why don't we just have the whole trial here. We 

can't do that.

MR. BRAY: No, I understand. We have to have a 

different structure.

THE COURT: And by the way, again, this is not a 

judicial officer issue. If an Article III judge is sitting in 

this same role, he or she is supposed to make an estimate --

MR. BRAY: That's right.

THE COURT: -- not have the eight- to ten-week trial 

that Mr. Orsini was predicting, but rather some other length of 

trial --

MR. BRAY: That's right.

THE COURT: -- with some other degree of proof or 

preparation that --

MR. BRAY: What the Court thinks is fair under the 

circumstances.

THE COURT: Right. And so there's no assurance, then, 

it seems to me, other than err on the high side, that a jury 

verdict two years later will reward the creditor, the victim, 

in bankruptcy terms, a hundred cents on the dollar, right?

MR. BRAY: And that's the risk that we all run by 

asking you to decide the issue.

THE COURT: Right.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 284

of 341
285

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. BRAY: You're going to make the decision about 

what the size of the pot is. And I think you've been very 

clear that you have concerns about that, but I think that's for 

another day, after you've heard argument and all the evidence, 

but I think that we're collectively saying, we'll take that 

risk.

THE COURT: Okay. I got it. Thank you, Mr. Bray.

MR. BRAY: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Mr. Orsini, is there anyone else? Well, I 

guess I don't have to ask you.

Does anyone else want to speak on behalf of the 

debtor's position here?

Okay. Mr. Julian, I guess we're ready to go under the 

order that I issued. We're going to reserve up to thirty 

minutes, so tell me what you need.

MR. JULIAN: Three minutes.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, you can have what you want.

MR. JULIAN: Your Honor, my closing argument would be 

every one of those statements you just made to Mr. Bray, so. I 

think you hit the nail on the head. I really want to rise to 

say just two things. This is a case that presents substantial 

cause for relief from stay for all the reasons you just 

discussed with Mr. Bray, and I really just want to talk about 

one timing issue. 

I heard in the dialogue between you and Mr. Orsini, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 285

of 341
286

PG&E Corp., 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 actually Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pitre were up here, a concern 

about a January trial date. December, January, February, there 

was discussion about that. It sounded to me like we were 

within three or four weeks of an issue of concern.

I'd just like to remind the Court that I filed this 

motion on July 2, ten days before the Governor signed AB1054, 

before I even knew it was going to happen. And then we had 

PG&E's request to continue my July 24 hearing date three weeks. 

And in your order -- I'm not complaining, by the way, I just --

THE COURT: You can complain.

MR. JULIAN: -- want to make the record clear.

THE COURT: You can complain if you want.

MR. JULIAN: Your order of July 22 states exactly what 

I was concerned about: "The TCC is concerned about any delays 

that might affect the individual claimants' trial preference 

entitlements. But a three-week delay is not fatal, 

particularly if the outcome the Court reaches proves to be in 

their favor". And I thank you for that comment.

I would just like to say that that, plus your comment 

the other day when the exclusivity termination motions first 

came up, when you said you can move quickly next spring and get 

the job done, I know you can. I don't think the timing issues 

are going to be a problem in this case with respect to this 

motion, and I would request that the motion be heard on the 

merits. There's substantial cause, for all the reasons you 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 286

of 341
287

PG&E Corp., 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

just mentioned to Mr. Bray.

THE COURT: When you say motion be heard on the 

merits, what do you mean by that?

MR. JULIAN: That the relief from stay motion be heard 

on the merits, without regard to the timing concerns about 

February and March.

THE COURT: Well, I'm sorry. I'm confused. How can I 

not take into account the arguments? People said, I have to --

my decision is up or down on this question, right?

MR. JULIAN: Yes, but I think we shouldn't be 

prejudiced by the three- or four-week delay.

THE COURT: No. No, you shouldn't be. But that's why 

I couldn't tell whether you were -- you said you weren't 

complaining, but maybe you are complaining. That's okay. Do 

you believe your clients' rights were prejudiced by that threeweek delay? I mean, I think --

MR. JULIAN: If the three or four weeks makes a 

difference, then my only point is PG&E brought this on, the 

three-week delay, themselves by asking for continuance.

THE COURT: Well, but I'll take the responsibility for 

making the decision. My recollection, in part, was because the 

subrogation motion was right in the pipeline behind it. I may 

be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure that that was part of 

the decision, wasn't it, and to match it up with the 

estimation?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 287

of 341
288

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: No. They were on calendar for July 24 

with us, too. Oh, I see what you're saying.

THE COURT: I thought --

MR. JULIAN: No, no, you're --

THE COURT: I'd have to go back and remember. Look, I 

wish I could remember everything I did; tell me what I said. 

We were trying to match them up.

MR. JULIAN: No, you were trying to match up my motion 

for relief from stay with the estimation motion.

THE COURT: And the subrogation motion.

MR. JULIAN: I don't believe so.

THE COURT: Well, okay. I may be wrong. I don't --

MR. JULIAN: Anyway, Your Honor, it's been a good 

argument. Thank you for spending all day with us.

THE COURT: It's my pleasure. Thank you for spending 

all day with me, all of you.

MR. JULIAN: And the matter's submitted, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah, the matter's submitted. I'll try to 

keep up my commitment to --

MR. JULIAN: Oh, Mr. Pitre -- Your Honor, do we still 

have some time left?

THE COURT: Yeah, you do. 

MR. JULIAN: Mr. Pitre?

THE COURT: You have plenty of time left.

Mr. Pitre, do you want to --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 288

of 341
289

PG&E Corp., 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

MR. JULIAN: We have twenty-eight minutes left, if you 

want to use it. 

THE COURT: But, Mr. Julian, I haven't been -- this is 

not like Jeopardy. I don't have the clock running on you. 

So, Mr. Pitre, what can I do for you?

MR. PITRE: Very briefly, Your Honor. The first point 

I'd like to make is the estimate for trial in this case. Mr. 

Orsini seemed to suggest that the plaintiffs were manufacturing 

or somehow exaggerating on the time required for trial. I have 

the brief that was submitted by PG&E in regard to the trial 

plan that had been submitted to Judge Karnow. And just to put 

this in context, Your Honor, there were competing plans 

submitted by PG&E and by the individual plaintiffs as to which 

trial to tee up first. 

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MR. PITRE: The plaintiffs had proposed that the Atlas 

trial be tried first. PG&E had proposed that the Tubbs trial 

be tried first. And in connection with PG&E's plan for the 

Tubbs trial, what they estimated is that that trial would take 

between 107 to 120 hours, but that included time to try the 

bellwether plaintiff cases. 

Now, the idea at that time to Judge Karnow was to have 

a sufficient number of bellwether cases so that the Court could 

begin by having a jury trial to have information that could be 

used by the parties to help assess what the values were: 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 289

of 341
290

PG&E Corp., 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

property losses, noneconomic damages, which were the most 

difficult.

So if I subtract out the time that PG&E said would be 

required to do the bellwether damage cases, what I come to is 

96 hours to 106 hours, which if you give six hours per day of 

trial time comes out to sixteen days to seventeen days; so 

that's three weeks and a half, fully consistent with a trial, 

if we believe PG&E's trial estimate, on a trial that can be 

done for Tubbs within three weeks to three-and-a-half weeks.

THE COURT: Is that a correct number, the six hours? 

Is that really a realistic jury-trial day? I don't know. It 

seems high to me, but I don't know.

MR. PITRE: That's what traditionally has been used --

THE COURT: Well, that's why I'm asking you.

MR. PITRE: That's traditionally what at least I have 

used with judges in how much time to plan so that they can set 

out how much trial time you get. So if a judge says you're 

only going to get five-and-a-half hours, depending on that 

judge's trial schedule, we adjust it that half hour per day.

THE COURT: Yeah, I understand. But sometimes, well, 

with a jury there, are they typically a five-day week or four?

MR. PITRE: Five days a week, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Five a week? So what are you telling me 

that -- bottom line, translate that for me.

MR. PITRE: Sure.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 290

of 341
291

PG&E Corp., 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: What is PG&E saying their time to trial on 

Tubbs would be, in terms --

MR. PITRE: Three-and-a-half weeks.

THE COURT: Three-and-a-half weeks? For their case, 

or for the total?

MR. PITRE: The whole case.

THE COURT: The whole case.

MR. PITRE: The whole case. So what I'm saying to 

this Court is, to the extent that Mr. Orsini is suggesting that 

this case is going to take six to eight weeks when Mr. Orsini, 

on behalf of his client, told the superior-court judge that 

this case could be tried both sides -- I assume that was a 

good-faith estimate -- within three-and-a-half weeks, that I 

trust that he was being candid, and I trust he was being 

honest.

I also suggest that a court has at its disposal, as 

you know, Your Honor -- Judge Walker was famous for it -- which 

was to impose time limits on people.

THE COURT: No, the bankruptcy judges, and this one, 

have done them. I'm not a fan of them, but I've done them.

MR. PITRE: And I think in a case like this, there is 

no question that I, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Campora, whoever's trying 

that case is going to ask that trial limits be imposed. 

There are rules you go through. You ask people about 

time for each witness. Why that witness is relevant. Why that 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 291

of 341
292

PG&E Corp., 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

witness isn't going to copy --

THE COURT: Well, again, now you're back in state 

court.

MR. PITRE: Yes, I am. 

THE COURT: Because the fact that I or other 

bankruptcy judges may do timed trials doesn't mean anything. 

It's these estimation trials versus the trial time.

MR. PITRE: That is correct.

THE COURT: So okay. 

MR. PITRE: So let's just go back to --

THE COURT: So what you're saying again --

MR. PITRE: I'm trying to --

THE COURT: -- is you believe your opponent told the 

superior court three- to four-week trial --

MR. PITRE: That is correct.

THE COURT: -- bellwether trial.

MR. PITRE: I'm trying to address the Court's point --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PITRE: -- that somehow or other, if we go over to 

state court, one cannot manage a time restriction so that the 

Court could have some assurance that, with time limits imposed, 

using good-faith estimates by PG&E at the time they submitted, 

that this is a case called the Tubbs trial that could be tried 

within three to three-and-a-half weeks.

THE COURT: And did you agree with that? In other 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 292

of 341
293

PG&E Corp., 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

words --

MR. PITRE: We did not agree that the Tubbs trial 

should be the case.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PITRE: So we proposed the Atlas trial, a 

different case.

THE COURT: Yeah, I know. But so there was no 

discussion on your side to respond to the Orsini prediction for 

Tubbs? It just doesn't -- so he was suggesting Tubbs at that 

time, and you were suggesting Atlas --

MR. PITRE: That is correct. 

THE COURT: -- and you got what you asked for.

MR. PITRE: There was no judicial determination --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PITRE: -- of who was right, in terms of their 

trial estimates.

THE COURT: I mean, but judges don't usually make that 

kind of decision, do they? They rely on the experience and the 

good will and the good integrity of the lawyers to make the 

estimates.

MR. PITRE: Well, I wish that were true sometimes, 

Judge, but I have seen judges in trials who say, I understand 

that you think you want fifty hours to try this case; I'm 

allotting twenty hours.

THE COURT: No, I know that. I know that, and we do 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 293

of 341
294

PG&E Corp., 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

that in this court too.

MR. PITRE: True.

THE COURT: But what I'm getting at is that presumably 

there was a good-faith statement by an officer of the court --

you on one side and Mr. Orsini on the other -- telling that 

court what each of you estimated for your case for what now is 

academic unless I grant relief from stay as to Tubbs.

MR. PITRE: That is correct. 

THE COURT: And if I grant relief as to Tubbs, leaving 

aside the suggestion that I should somehow communicate with the 

superior-court judge, you lawyers who are going to be trying 

the case will have your discussion with that judge about 

everything about those things.

MR. PITRE: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. I've got you.

MR. PITRE: The next point that I'd like to make is, 

it's always interesting to me when somebody, a party, like the 

gentleman who just spoke, who is not at risk for living with 

the consequence of what the verdict may be or the consequence 

of what an estimation trial will be, seems to suggest that this 

Court should act one way or the other. The people who live 

with that decision are the people who are the fire victims. 

The fire victims got brought into this court because PG&E 

decided to use this court as a litigation tactic to avoid what 

it saw as an exposure to liability.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 294

of 341
295

PG&E Corp., 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

Now, all I'm saying is, Judge, the most important 

people who need to believe in the process are the fire victims 

because they will live with the outcome of a bad result. And 

if they aren't accorded the opportunity to have a jury 

determine that -- and, Your Honor, this has nothing to do with 

this Court. What it has a lot to do is that confidence that 

people will take from the fact that they had a full and fair 

opportunity to try their case and to have people who don't know 

anything about whether there is enough money or not to their 

verdict, they're not influenced by whether their verdict will 

send a signal, and that signal will be used and multiplied and 

somehow have an impact on whether or not there is enough money 

to resolve all cases. 

They make a decision. A decision that is 

uninfluenced, that is not biased. And when they make that 

decision, I submit to this Court the issue they make on 

liability and causation is one that is free from all of the 

noise that may surround this bankruptcy court in terms of the 

impact. And if we are going to live with the risk and the 

outcome, a suggestion that I have is that a jury trial is one 

that will render the confidence in the result, bad or good. 

Because any lawyer who is a plaintiff lawyer who doesn't come 

out and say we tried our best case and we lost and doesn't come 

back and readjust themselves and say, I cannot come in with the 

same degree of confidence in the estimation of what the value 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 295

of 341
296

PG&E Corp., 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

is is not being, in my view, a lawyer that is practicing law to 

understand the impact of what it means to all his other 

clients. 

And all I'm suggesting is I believe that the most 

important thing we can do to have confidence is to allow a jury 

to make that determination with all of the protections and 

protocols that we have talked about. 

That's it, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: No. Stay there for a minute. I agree 

with you for those eight or thirteen or whatever number of 

people who are in front of the jury. And as I even said 

before, I think I was saying to Mr. Orsini, or Mr. Bray, that 

isn't it important that those victims tell their fellow people, 

whatever the correct phrase is for equal people from the county 

or from the area on a jury, but it only is for that number of 

people. So the rest of the hundreds and thousands of victims

won't have that right as long as this bankruptcy and the 

bankruptcy laws dictate the outcome. 

So it may well be, there'll be a bellwether. It may 

well be that there'll be a very favorable verdict in favor of 

the plaintiffs if it goes forward. And it may well be that 

either the estimator or the company itself will have to make a 

much more generous kind of pot, if you will, a trust. But 

there won't be anybody else going for a trial, a trial and a 

jury, except for those ones that might want to do it even 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 296

of 341
297

PG&E Corp., 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

though it will have no economic impact on it. Right? I mean, 

isn't that true?

MR. PITRE: Well, I differ --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PITRE: -- from the Court's opinion.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PITRE: Because it's not the number that comes 

out. Yes, the number has some importance. But the most 

important thing is the liability finding. Because the --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PITRE: -- Tubbs case is a case that has had such 

notoriety, primarily because PG&E wants to always tout it and 

say it's important without getting involved to what it is, the 

most important thing is if a jury comes back and says PG&E's 

employees destroyed evidence. The CAL FIRE report did not 

consider evidence of what happened at Pole 773; it's a pole 

down from where the actual site that is suspected, the zinc 

(ph.) property, of where the fire may have originated. If it 

is determined by that jury that the entire way in which 

causation was assessed and that critical evidence was 

destroyed, that is going to send a very loud message to PG&E in 

these proceedings regarding how they treat the rest of the 

Tubbs cases.

THE COURT: No, I thought I --

MR. PITRE: That's what's important.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 297

of 341
298

PG&E Corp., 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: I thought I was agreeing with that very 

same thing. So that --

MR. PITRE: Yes.

THE COURT: -- the victims who are able to tell their 

story and the jury who listens to that story and responds with 

a favorable ruling, those are all good things from your side. 

And it's also a good thing from your side if the message is 

loud and clear such that either the Court estimating or PG&E 

consensually agreeing to a much more generous -- a better 

recovery than, perhaps, they would try to do otherwise.

But the notion of other victims going before other 

juries is still a much different proposition. So I will --

MR. PITRE: It is.

THE COURT: -- accept and I take your word for it 

because it doesn't have to -- you don't have to be an 

experienced lawyer or judge; it's human. You're describing a 

human condition in a situation that I understand. But I also 

believe I am right that that doesn't mean anybody else is going 

to go before a jury unless it's only for that so-called 

estimation, just to figure out the number for you in the pool. 

Anyway, I don't want to make any more statements.

MR. PITRE: An important note, Your Honor, I agree 

with you. It is a very important, in fact critical, 

information point. That, I don't think anybody can disagree 

with.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 298

of 341
299

PG&E Corp., 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: Yeah. Okay.

MR. PITRE: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to thank everyone 

for the long day and the hard work, as I did yesterday. And I 

will try to keep my commitment to you that I made when we 

resumed after lunch to dispose of at least the four motions --

the exclusivity motion and relief from stay motions -- within 

the time frame I indicated. And to the extent that the 

estimation is going to be influenced, particularly by the 

relief from stay rulings and other aspects that we've discussed 

more specifically that pertain to estimation, I will take that 

up when we meet again on this point. 

So once again, to review what I asked for, I asked 

for -- I was scheduling on the 27th of August at 9:30, along 

with the other calendar, the few other matters on the calendar, 

is the status conference on whatever shape or form the 

estimation is going to start to take. I'm insisting, without a 

formal order, that the principal counsel meet and confer before 

then to discuss the contours of what either they agree or they 

don't agree but want me to try to resolve about that; that on 

the same day, we will have whatever is necessary for the motion 

to preserve the jury rights, that was framed in the motion by 

the TCC, and for that I want short, simultaneous briefs by the 

20th.

Separately, my proposal regarding consent or lack of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 299

of 341
300

PG&E Corp., 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

consent about having me as the bankruptcy judge, rather than 

another judge involved, in all or in part, that just be 

communicated in brief form in the manner I said by the 19th of 

August. 

And with that, I will send you on your way, and thank 

you.

Mr. Orsini, you have a --

MR. ORSINI: One quick issue, Your Honor. And I hate 

to raise at 5:05 --

THE COURT: That's okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- to raise this, but as we're talking 

about scheduling. As I mentioned earlier, during the 

estimation argument, we have reached agreement with the statecourt plaintiff leadership on the BrownGreer database --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- and a mechanism for getting access to 

that for us, as well as the UCC, as well as to set up protocols 

to see if we can continue mediations to come up with common

valuation efforts.

I've been working very close with Mr. Skikos, who 

you've heard from before on these issues. Our hope was to sort 

of present that to the Court today --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ORSINI: -- and then submit an order. But late in 

the day, so I don't know if Your Honor would be amenable to a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 300

of 341
301

PG&E Corp., 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

teleconference sometime between now and the next conference 

where we could take that issue up?

THE COURT: Whatever you want. Look, I've got a lot 

of people who have been here all day. I've got a staff of 

people that --

MR. ORSINI: Right. 

THE COURT: -- have been here. 

MR. ORSINI: That's why I don't want to do it now, 

Your Honor. So if Your Honor would be amenable to a short 

teleconference, it would probably take no more than thirty 

minutes so we could present the order.

THE COURT: And how many attorneys get to participate?

MR. ORSINI: Well, I mean --

THE COURT: I'll tell you what. Do whatever you want.

MR. ORSINI: I think me and Mr. Skikos could address 

it.

THE COURT: If you've reached a resolution, that's 

fine. If you think it's important to have a conference, I'll 

do whatever you ask. If it can be done by just a written 

stipulation that you file, that's okay. You gentlemen make the 

call on that.

MR. ORSINI: Why don't we start with a written 

stipulation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah. 

MR. ORSINI: And if --

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 301

of 341
302

PG&E Corp., 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: What you're comfortable with.

MR. ORSINI: -- Your Honor, has questions, we could 

have a conference.

THE COURT: My courtroom deputy, Ms. Parada, knows the 

drill for setting up telephonic conferences. The only thing 

that's different about this case is in order -- because there's 

so many people that are tracking everything that goes on, I 

can't --

MR. ORSINI: We'll file the request on the docket.

THE COURT: I can't just do it the simple way. But 

we'll do whatever's necessary to keep it that way. And I'm 

glad you reached a resolution of that; glad to hear it.

MR. ORSINI: As are we. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, everyone. Have a good 

evening.

(Whereupon these proceedings were concluded at 5:06 PM)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 302

of 341
303

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

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

I, Clara Rubin, certify that the foregoing transcript is a true 

and accurate record of the proceedings.

________________________________________ 

/s/ CLARA RUBIN

eScribers

7227 N. 16th Street, Suite #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

Date: August 16, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 303

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

A

AB (3)

 20:20;67:9;70:16

AB1054 (2)

 231:10;286:6

AB-1054 (1)

 172:3

abbreviated (2)

 260:20;262:24

ability (10)

 5:21;38:17;44:23;

 124:21;197:15;257:12;

 270:15;271:6;272:9;

 276:8

able (18)

 11:9;39:8;62:14,16;

 105:18;108:12;115:24;

 163:10;175:18;177:23;

 185:11;192:20;223:7,

 11;224:14;231:7;

 239:18;298:4

about-face (1)

 259:10

abrogate (2)

 172:4;177:2

abrogated (1)

 177:12

absent (5)

 16:21;244:2,5;

 251:12;256:25

absolute (5)

 67:9;171:3;172:3;

 198:12;271:5

absolutely (27)

 15:7;18:1;30:7;

 31:23;33:20;46:25;

 51:4,23;58:11;117:20;

 149:16;151:25;165:17;

 171:16;174:17;203:17;

 207:1;240:23;242:21;

 249:7,17;258:23;

 260:3,22;266:8;

 269:14;270:15

absorbed (1)

 193:7

abundantly (1)

 129:9

abuses (1)

 191:19

academic (1)

 294:7

accept (6)

 62:16;137:22;220:1;

 229:23;253:10;298:14

acceptable (1)

 34:22

acceptance (1)

 60:18

access (3)

 104:22;233:6;300:16

accommodate (2)

 87:22,23

accorded (1)

 295:4

according (1)

 109:6

account (3)

 33:6;231:16;287:8

accounted (1)

 49:22

accounts (1)

 105:22

accurate (1)

 276:4

acknowledge (3)

 23:8;136:22;238:10

acknowledged (1)

 83:21

acknowledgment (1)

 172:22

acres (1)

 216:11

across (4)

 214:24;225:23;

 228:7;268:14

act (7)

 22:8;40:19;149:6;

 189:12;234:8;276:8;

 294:21

action (8)

 7:16;72:16,18;106:4,

 6;112:21;113:24;

 264:24

active (2)

 23:8;69:13

actively (1)

 180:25

actual (5)

 245:9;261:12;281:3,

 3;297:17

actually (47)

 14:21;18:15;22:20;

 24:17;26:1;29:5;37:24;

 49:2;52:10,25;54:22,

 24,25;56:8,10;57:24;

 79:13;88:24;97:18;

 104:8;110:11;116:3,4;

 118:3;151:22;153:12;

 156:13;161:23;165:20,

 25;183:15;214:2;

 220:9;243:21;247:3,9,

 11;250:11,25;257:2;

 260:12,19;264:1;

 267:19;270:21;282:18;

 286:1

ad (13)

 8:18;25:16;74:1;

 76:2;78:24;79:3;

 147:18,23,24;149:10;

 151:9;241:24;255:10

add (7)

 24:10;162:15;186:5;

 187:9;211:19;251:25;

 271:14

added (1)

 246:14

adding (1)

 231:2

addition (2)

 152:11;207:12

additional (1)

 27:8

address (27)

 9:6;10:18,22;27:8;

 28:20;29:2;46:9;63:15;

 64:17;119:15;120:1,

 18;131:5;141:12;

 158:8;171:15;174:15;

 178:25;195:22;199:20,

 21;210:9;212:15;

 245:23;249:5;292:17;

 301:15

addressed (12)

 33:24;36:22,23;39:2,

 2;123:3;142:22;

 172:13;181:19;182:3;

 238:25,25

adequate (3)

 55:2;74:13,19

adherence (1)

 178:18

adjudicate (1)

 160:13

adjudicating (3)

 158:16,17;161:5

adjudication (1)

 190:3

adjudications (1)

 248:1

adjust (1)

 290:19

administration (2)

 16:24;231:8

admissible (2)

 103:10;106:18

admit (7)

 15:15;96:6,6;102:24;

 116:4;236:3,8

admitted (3)

 98:3;217:13;254:11

admitting (3)

 116:5,5,6

ado (1)

 90:22

adopt (4)

 107:2;116:13;126:9;

 196:12

adopted (1)

 156:20

adopting (1)

 125:7

advance (2)

 60:13,14

adverse (4)

 12:7;74:5;98:4;

 121:19

advice (4)

 140:10;150:14;

 179:25;250:15

advising (1)

 149:17

advisors (3)

 147:22,23,24

advisory (2)

 144:15;196:15

advocate (1)

 159:16

advocating (3)

 168:8,10;229:10

affect (1)

 286:15

affecting (1)

 158:18

affidavits (1)

 214:16

afford (5)

 72:11;262:7,8,16;

 271:2

afforded (1)

 144:11

afoul (1)

 53:23

afternoon (8)

 58:16;153:9;156:4;

 202:22,23;241:22;

 252:23;256:22

again (76)

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

 19:6;20:21;24:2;27:10,

 13;32:20;36:25;39:18;

 40:6;42:6;43:17;47:17;

 51:7;59:21;69:5;70:4;

 73:5;92:20;96:20;

 105:12;107:18;111:14;

 114:2;128:2;130:4;

 131:3,25;137:24;

 139:5;145:25;146:16;

 147:21;150:14;164:23;

 166:9;168:3;179:15;

 187:23;189:24;191:25;

 192:12;201:20;208:18;

 209:8,22;210:2;

 211:12;212:20;219:11;

 221:16;224:21;227:7;

 229:6,21;230:2;232:1;

 244:14;247:7;250:14;

 260:18;267:23;269:10;

 272:22;274:3;277:9;

 279:1;280:1;281:23;

 284:7;292:2,11;

 299:12,13

against (11)

 13:22;49:13;51:17;

 55:7;68:24;103:19;

 104:11;119:10;240:8;

 261:8;263:25

age (1)

 238:10

agencies (2)

 181:14,20

aggregate (8)

 42:4,23;54:22;55:1,

 25;107:18;134:1;

 163:17

ago (9)

 5:13;6:25;49:20;

 123:3;142:15;169:9;

 198:17;240:14;272:25

agree (77)

 9:11;11:18;16:11;

 17:8;24:24;32:3,7;

 34:12;38:23;40:5,7,24;

 43:23,23;44:1;51:15;

 58:3;64:3,21;66:10;

 72:21;73:12;79:19;

 83:25;88:3;91:6,9;

 94:14,16;98:11,13;

 113:1,1,2,6;115:1,4;

 122:3;124:2,3,4,10;

 128:4;132:7;133:2;

 134:15,16;135:10,15,

 18;138:3;152:23;

 165:25;185:13,16;

 186:15;198:4;207:10,

 10;222:22;238:20;

 245:18;255:14;265:6;

 269:4,6,9;270:3,3;

 273:4;278:17;292:25;

 293:2;296:9;298:22;

 299:19,20

agreed (12)

 8:20;40:1;64:20;

 79:20;116:25;141:11;

 149:2,4,24;150:10;

 192:15;194:6

agreeing (7)

 71:17;104:2;128:24;

 137:23;196:18;298:1,9

agreement (11)

 7:9;60:13,15,16;

 135:9,17;137:25;

 138:5;168:8;194:1;

 300:13

agreements (1)

 208:13

agrees (2)

 150:16;196:18

agriculture (1)

 112:23

AH (1)

 138:21

ahead (20)

 7:13;9:3;13:6;28:19;

 56:13,15;102:18;

 112:16;124:25;125:14;

 129:22;159:18;171:18,

 21;173:17;199:19;

 214:11;248:8;271:25;

 283:6

aid (1)

 277:2

aim (1)

 219:2

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(1) AB - aim Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 304

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

air (1)

 113:19

airport (1)

 6:1

Akin (2)

 8:19;79:3

aligned (2)

 74:15;76:3

alive (4)

 17:20;100:22;

 123:18;185:18

Allan (1)

 252:24

alleged (1)

 30:6

allocate (2)

 8:13;24:9

allocated (2)

 8:1;41:18

allocation (2)

 8:11;46:19

allotting (1)

 293:24

allow (4)

 21:22;75:14;105:19;

 296:5

allowance (2)

 273:17;275:6

allowing (1)

 160:10

alluded (1)

 249:19

almost (5)

 38:3;44:13;142:21;

 248:9;277:5

alone (2)

 107:9;164:15

along (1)

 299:14

alternative (10)

 5:16;17:23;68:4;

 77:5;84:22;92:23;

 146:11;147:11;156:24;

 159:1

alternatives (2)

 146:10;173:10

although (3)

 148:18;151:12;

 154:24

always (6)

 87:25;92:2;204:5;

 241:17;294:17;297:12

amenable (3)

 188:9;300:25;301:9

amended (1)

 7:10

American (1)

 119:24

among (6)

 15:3;30:14;47:22;

 164:18;196:13;245:3

amorphous (2)

 231:9;240:6

amount (19)

 49:5,11;51:18;55:15,

 16;90:20;91:24;100:7,

 10;112:6;131:15;

 134:13;201:8;202:11;

 229:13,15,16;230:5;

 283:7

amounts (1)

 59:9

analysis (10)

 14:7;19:1;24:17;

 40:15;59:4,16;62:3;

 98:10;127:23;137:23

and/or (1)

 130:2

Andrew (1)

 66:18

animal (2)

 106:1;227:15

announce (2)

 25:5;192:21

announced (1)

 29:10

announcements (1)

 7:22

announces (1)

 81:14

answered (1)

 95:24

answer's (2)

 9:25;55:20

anticipate (3)

 65:5;186:16;242:24

anticipates (1)

 33:1

anticipating (1)

 184:23

anti-discrimination (1)

 198:12

antithetical (1)

 172:20

anymore (1)

 192:22

apart (1)

 24:14

apologies (1)

 241:23

apologize (2)

 95:12,13

apparent (1)

 204:7

apparently (3)

 115:8;257:6;259:17

appeal (18)

 10:4;80:24,25,25;

 81:6,17,18,23;82:10,

 10,18,24;83:12,17;

 119:1,8,25;200:4

appealed (2)

 82:2;119:4

appeals (8)

 28:6,11,11,12;80:17,

 23;81:23;152:2

appear (4)

 136:21;248:12;

 281:1,2

appearance (3)

 7:6;8:4,7

appearances (1)

 275:3

appeared (1)

 239:2

appearing (3)

 88:5;111:1;149:21

appears (1)

 256:5

appellant (1)

 82:6

Appellate (12)

 81:8;83:6,20;84:13;

 119:20;120:20;148:17;

 161:1;268:25;269:1,2,

 11

apples (1)

 276:11

applicable (1)

 124:9

application (2)

 204:17,18

applied (1)

 241:9

applies (5)

 31:2;56:7;58:1;96:3,

 10

apply (6)

 96:9;99:4;107:1;

 177:4;224:13;237:22

appointed (3)

 46:14;60:9;192:4

appreciate (13)

 13:14;35:9;78:8;

 86:3;109:24;110:6;

 111:7;114:19;160:18,

 20;202:18;234:14;

 241:17

appreciation (1)

 94:21

approach (11)

 10:17;34:15;38:21,

 22;40:24;79:25;80:2;

 156:14;171:10;228:22;

 262:9

appropriate (6)

 87:17;154:21;186:3;

 219:22;222:8;253:11

approves (1)

 62:17

April (1)

 154:12

arbitration (2)

 33:17;133:14

arc (1)

 251:2

Archdiocese (1)

 41:16

arching (1)

 103:13

area (5)

 18:22;202:1;250:24;

 251:1;296:15

argue (8)

 8:14;11:23;52:14;

 64:9,9;186:14;231:5;

 245:20

argued (6)

 71:6;134:20;171:19;

 194:7;258:8;272:6

argues (1)

 52:14

arguing (7)

 57:19;84:23;144:25;

 159:24;176:16;228:9;

 268:21

argument (51)

 13:8,9;15:17,22;

 16:25;57:21;58:16;

 71:10;86:14;99:20;

 101:14;121:12,14;

 122:4;130:24;140:11;

 165:14,23;168:5;

 170:13;173:1;176:24;

 181:23;189:3,20;

 199:25;203:18;211:8;

 216:2;218:14;228:25;

 231:7;238:3,6;239:1,4;

 240:7,10,22;247:13;

 271:16;272:2,3;

 277:11;279:17,20;

 281:24;285:4,18;

 288:14;300:13

arguments (19)

 9:14;10:8;29:19;

 86:18;88:8;134:4;

 166:2;168:10;195:12;

 215:16;220:2;238:3;

 240:2;242:1;243:13;

 245:22;258:15,16;

 287:8

arm (2)

 250:5,5

arms (3)

 25:9;27:17;73:7

around (13)

 6:2;27:17;73:7;

 100:18;164:10,12;

 208:7;209:22;213:5,7;

 243:1;258:16;281:20

arrange (1)

 5:16

arranged (1)

 18:3

arrangements (1)

 5:23

Article (18)

 17:17;55:14;60:22;

 61:2;82:2;124:3;128:5;

 129:12,14;131:1;

 148:7,14;150:8;217:5;

 222:11,12;280:24;

 284:8

articulate (1)

 44:5

articulated (2)

 40:24;257:11

asbestos (11)

 18:17;47:1;48:18;

 57:23;88:21,23;125:8,

 16,18,22;126:5

asbestosis (2)

 88:24,25

Ashley (1)

 79:2

aside (14)

 10:7;11:24;12:18;

 19:10;43:24;59:21;

 96:12;97:23;134:3;

 161:25;200:4;222:15;

 230:3;294:10

aspect (1)

 39:22

aspects (2)

 194:2;299:10

assembled (1)

 103:15

assess (1)

 289:25

assessed (1)

 297:20

assessment (1)

 257:3

assign (1)

 213:10

assigned (3)

 81:11,12;207:14

assignment (10)

 32:22;43:17,18,19;

 80:7;115:21;140:7;

 147:6;213:8;248:6

assist (2)

 224:18;235:6

assume (14)

 17:16;81:18,19;

 82:11;114:22;121:13;

 189:2;203:11;211:20;

 244:13;248:22;250:4;

 252:16;291:12

assumed (1)

 252:18

assuming (6)

 39:13;95:25;96:2;

 135:24;145:4;192:20

assurance (2)

 284:19;292:21

Atlas (23)

 42:18;179:21;

 198:22;199:9,10;

 201:19;215:3;226:12,

 19,23,24,25;227:4;

 229:23,25;230:7,13;

 259:14,15;280:8;

 289:16;293:5,10

ATM (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(2) air - ATM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 305

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 61:8

attack (1)

 123:4

attempt (3)

 193:2,9;194:4

attenuated (1)

 20:5

attitude (1)

 178:17

Attorney (1)

 181:13

attorneys (2)

 9:16;301:12

attorneys' (3)

 31:14,15;34:7

attractions (1)

 64:15

Au (1)

 120:5

AUGUST (8)

 5:1;177:25;190:20;

 193:8;245:25;272:19;

 299:14;300:4

authenticate (1)

 103:16

authority (12)

 11:12;40:9;93:12;

 129:1;238:13,14,17,19,

 21;274:11;275:5;

 281:18

automatic (4)

 198:23;237:20,21,24

automatically (1)

 241:8

available (8)

 5:12;31:13;45:9;

 112:20;218:10;227:25;

 235:10;237:9

average (2)

 24:7,11

averaged (1)

 109:6

averted (1)

 142:15

avoid (8)

 75:15;79:14;82:23;

 83:6;84:4;142:6;164:1;

 294:24

award (1)

 282:4

awarded (2)

 201:8;202:11

aware (4)

 74:16;106:3;160:5;

 235:16

away (7)

 16:9;85:13,22;96:8;

 108:21;148:22;281:8

awkward (1)

 147:13

axes (1)

 113:19

B

b5 (1)

 53:6

Babich (1)

 203:4

back (82)

 10:16;11:17;12:11,

 19;14:14;16:7;27:2;

 30:17,17;33:14;40:10;

 41:2;43:17;46:22;

 47:17;50:8,15;51:20;

 54:17;57:13;59:3;62:2;

 66:4,22;82:20;87:10;

 93:21;102:8;105:2;

 115:21;119:10,11;

 128:3;131:3,13;138:9;

 143:15;145:7;150:2;

 156:8;157:17,20;

 158:11;160:4;162:10;

 164:18;169:25;177:17;

 187:13;188:3;198:17;

 199:23;201:22;215:2;

 223:17;231:10;243:16,

 18;245:24;248:25;

 249:8;251:23;256:13,

 19;258:1;260:16;

 265:18;268:5,21;

 270:23;271:9;272:2;

 275:11,12;277:10;

 281:17;284:2;288:5;

 292:2,10;295:24;

 297:14

backdrop (1)

 199:15

backed (2)

 205:15;212:17

background (2)

 170:23;199:15

bad (6)

 51:11,12;191:22;

 282:25;295:3,21

Baker (1)

 88:5

balance (4)

 85:22;231:20;240:8,

 8

ball (2)

 67:23;225:20

balling (1)

 157:8

bank (1)

 131:25

bankrupt (1)

 197:5

bankruptcies (5)

 88:17;121:18;221:7,

 8;231:22

bankruptcy (116)

 9:15,17,18;12:20;

 13:20,23;16:17,21,23;

 22:24;28:5;30:4;33:1;

 35:6,11,22;36:8;37:7,

 14;38:5,17;39:15,19,

 21;41:3;54:9;55:7,13;

 72:17;79:17;81:4,8,12;

 82:5;92:14;93:10,16;

 95:12;100:15;103:18;

 104:11;106:13;114:22;

 119:2;126:3;131:14;

 138:11;144:10;147:10;

 148:13;152:7,9;

 166:20;172:23;175:19,

 20;177:22;178:13;

 182:23;192:16;195:22;

 199:15,23;202:19,24;

 217:7;218:17,20;

 220:23;221:5,12,14;

 224:24;226:21;228:2;

 229:7,12;231:14,17;

 234:10,15;235:25;

 237:18;241:8;244:2,5;

 248:19;249:12;250:8;

 251:12;253:9;259:11;

 261:19;267:3,15,16;

 269:1;271:6;272:16;

 273:22;274:8;275:7,

 22,25;276:5,16;

 277:24;278:20;281:21;

 284:22;291:19;292:6;

 295:18;296:17,18;

 300:1

bankrupting (1)

 198:18

banks (2)

 231:13,13

bar (22)

 10:23;73:15,17,18,

 24;75:14;92:14;

 124:12,16;125:19,23;

 126:8;128:11,25;

 158:19,22;159:10;

 161:6,11;162:2;

 185:23;186:13

bargaining (1)

 245:7

barred (1)

 16:19

bars (1)

 125:8

bar's (2)

 125:16;126:5

baseball (1)

 33:17

Based (10)

 18:6;62:15,17;98:9;

 181:20;219:6;258:25;

 263:7;274:10,12

bashful (1)

 87:13

basic (2)

 147:10;270:17

basically (4)

 46:16;91:25;162:10;

 274:25

basis (6)

 88:22;90:19;96:6;

 108:13;160:10;218:25

bat (1)

 28:21

battle (2)

 91:23;197:16

battles (1)

 277:13

Bay (8)

 90:11;95:7;109:4,8;

 198:21;199:7,16;

 216:10

bear (2)

 242:14;257:24

beat (2)

 120:23;244:14

become (2)

 236:11,13

becomes (2)

 124:13;167:14

bed (1)

 123:5

befallen (1)

 282:2

began (1)

 68:5

begin (7)

 7:23;26:15;116:11,

 14;154:20;279:24;

 289:24

beginning (3)

 67:25;85:16;261:12

begins (1)

 258:22

behalf (16)

 7:8;8:9;26:7;66:19;

 79:3;88:5;95:7;151:9;

 185:8;195:24;241:24;

 252:24;256:23;266:18;

 285:11;291:11

behavior (1)

 216:14

behind (3)

 24:18;237:14;287:22

beholder (1)

 279:10

belabor (2)

 156:6;251:11

believes (5)

 34:23;49:10;71:24;

 102:1;173:21

Bellwether (17)

 200:25;201:1,17;

 217:23;229:3,3,7;

 265:20,21;267:14,17;

 280:11;289:21,23;

 290:4;292:16;296:19

bench (1)

 192:19

beneficial (1)

 167:23

beneficiaries (1)

 231:14

benefit (11)

 161:25;188:1;216:4,

 4;242:4,7;244:25;

 250:10;253:6,7;255:21

benefits (5)

 79:23;109:14;161:4;

 242:6;276:23

benefitted (1)

 271:9

Benjamin (2)

 151:6;241:23

Bennett (6)

 8:18;78:11,12,15,19;

 87:7

best (24)

 6:8;68:7;70:3,4;

 74:15;87:14;104:16;

 167:18;175:13,21;

 209:22;211:10,11;

 215:21;240:9;244:1;

 252:12,15;253:17;

 258:9;259:20;260:25;

 282:14;295:23

best- (1)

 33:6

best-of-worlds (1)

 72:5

best-suited (1)

 275:6

better (13)

 27:15;34:24;35:24;

 143:12;144:15;167:15;

 186:24;187:1;231:4;

 257:17;270:18;275:18;

 298:9

beyond (4)

 130:2,5;201:10;

 217:25

biased (1)

 295:15

bifurcate (7)

 191:2;207:14,16;

 215:10;227:14;260:7,9

bifurcated (3)

 261:13,14;265:8

bifurcating (3)

 83:2;85:6;215:18

bifurcation (1)

 217:19

big (14)

 27:16;34:3,5;58:14;

 94:22;125:21;143:23;

 144:21;184:23;191:20;

 221:6;228:13;232:22;

 269:18

bigger (7)

 9:22;36:7;76:7;

 77:21;137:7;142:14;

 264:3

big-time (1)

 69:12

bill (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(3) attack - bill Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 306

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 176:25

billion (10)

 23:14;24:4,17;46:12;

 60:4,8;109:2;134:7;

 136:12,25

billion- (1)

 24:8

billions (3)

 31:19;158:18;160:13

binding (4)

 123:19;124:14;

 128:1;136:1

binds (1)

 129:3

bit (13)

 43:9;56:9;68:6;

 76:20;87:24;147:4;

 157:7;160:15;208:16;

 236:4;255:13;257:4;

 264:22

bits (1)

 103:13

Bittner (12)

 18:22,25;33:15;

 91:17,18,23;93:12,13,

 16;94:2;131:22;132:1

Bittner's (1)

 93:20

black (3)

 32:21,22;248:13

blocks (1)

 89:22

Blumenstiel's (1)

 5:12

board (1)

 60:16

bodily (4)

 126:14,16;127:7;

 130:1

bond (1)

 78:25

bondholder (3)

 25:16;31:17;147:19

bondholders (2)

 8:18;133:10

bondholders' (1)

 49:23

both (23)

 26:4;36:8;38:3;

 41:18;70:23;72:8;

 99:24;111:8;114:4;

 118:25;127:25;151:23;

 163:11;174:5;198:25;

 218:12;220:10,25;

 221:3;228:20;243:13;

 268:21;291:12

bothers (1)

 174:22

bottom (2)

 152:3;290:24

bound (4)

 68:14;136:5;213:17;

 238:17

bounds (1)

 68:1

box (1)

 64:8

boxed (1)

 73:7

boy (1)

 234:20

BR (1)

 129:25

Bray (74)

 149:23;271:18,20,

 23,24;272:1,4,13,18;

 273:2,4,6,8,20,25;

 274:3,10,13,15,19,22,

 24;275:13,21,24;276:3,

 6,13,17,19,21,24;

 277:1,16,23;278:2,4,6,

 10,17,24;279:9,16,20,

 23;280:2,6,10,13,15;

 281:6,8,15;282:8,14,

 18,21,23;283:10,20,22,

 25;284:5,10,14,17,23;

 285:1,7,8,19,23;287:1;

 296:12

break (9)

 87:3;122:16;151:5;

 153:1;170:17;187:5;

 226:9,10;256:11

breast-implant (1)

 49:6

bridge (2)

 184:9;270:22

brief (41)

 27:17;36:23;50:24;

 66:21;67:1;89:16;

 120:10,24;121:6,6,15,

 15,22;123:6,10,11,11;

 124:8;125:3;128:9;

 130:8;141:4;145:19;

 146:12;151:19,19;

 170:25;171:20;186:23,

 23;191:20;192:13;

 193:14;197:18;219:11;

 240:15;250:23;252:24;

 253:1;289:10;300:3

briefing (8)

 45:8;65:7;121:3;

 123:13,16;128:18;

 185:24;199:21

Briefly (2)

 222:21;289:6

briefs (21)

 27:5,14;36:20;38:20;

 52:15;63:18;71:23;

 93:19;117:9;123:24;

 127:20,21;153:10;

 169:6;185:5;186:24;

 191:9,10;212:15;

 223:20;299:23

Brier (1)

 106:8

brightly (1)

 257:17

BRILLIANT (13)

 252:23,24;253:1,3,

 21,24;254:1,14,16,22,

 25;256:9,10

bring (3)

 16:11;112:19;245:7

brings (1)

 244:16

broad (5)

 15:3;34:25;64:8;

 196:22;218:8

broader (2)

 38:21;57:4

broke (1)

 190:16

broken-down (1)

 62:24

brought (5)

 238:22;247:19;

 269:19;287:18;294:23

BrownGreer (1)

 300:14

Buccola (1)

 203:4

build (1)

 232:8

building (3)

 5:19;228:22,22

built (2)

 99:13;162:3

bulk (1)

 156:18

bulletproof (1)

 13:2

bunch (4)

 133:23;145:18;

 155:14;266:18

bundle (1)

 230:4

burden (6)

 101:4;111:20,21;

 177:10;257:24;258:3

burned (1)

 216:22

burner (1)

 177:17

business (3)

 119:12;168:6;256:20

Butte (1)

 198:25

buyer (1)

 216:7

buzzing (1)

 125:11

C

cadre (1)

 74:13

Cahill (1)

 221:16

CAL (12)

 12:10;17:22;29:15,

 19;183:20;184:16,18;

 250:19,23;253:15;

 265:9;297:15

CalApp3d (1)

 205:21

calculated (2)

 182:20;184:1

calculation (4)

 8:25;56:17;61:3,15

calculations (1)

 98:7

calendar (9)

 191:4;194:14;204:6;

 205:16,22;212:17;

 288:1;299:15,15

calendaring (1)

 190:21

CALIFORNIA (28)

 5:1;10:4,11;29:9;

 30:3,10;31:2;47:7;

 96:2,23;119:19,20;

 123:2;166:12,14;

 176:18;181:13;199:6;

 214:15,18;218:18;

 224:13;238:5;240:18;

 247:18;249:1,8;251:20

Californians (1)

 251:13

California's (2)

 74:14,14

Call (24)

 5:3;6:11;33:7;35:1,

 22;86:3;92:5;97:8;

 103:10;108:13;151:4;

 164:20;175:9;181:3;

 190:21;191:5;193:9,

 11;195:4,5;220:4,17;

 262:10;301:21

called (10)

 21:2;64:1;106:1;

 109:10;205:20;221:13;

 227:15;228:3,5;292:23

calls (2)

 214:24;220:18

came (10)

 10:17;89:22;110:15;

 125:18;140:15;215:5;

 221:24;243:16;268:24;

 286:21

Camp (5)

 24:6,10;201:20;

 226:11;280:9

CAMPORA (59)

 202:23;203:1,1,2,4,4,

 14,17,19;204:4,12,15,

 22,24;205:2,8,10,13,

 18,20;206:7,10,21;

 207:1,5,9;208:1,3,5,10,

 12,15,24;209:1,3,5,9,

 12,14,20,24;210:2,4,9,

 13,15,21,24;211:1,6,

 13,16,18,20,25;217:3;

 227:15;249:19;291:22

Campora's (2)

 213:16;214:6

can (174)

 5:16;6:8;9:2,3;

 10:24;12:21,24,24;

 16:7;18:2,5,11;20:13;

 21:21;28:18,20;34:20;

 43:23;45:4;46:6;58:1;

 64:25;66:22;67:24;

 68:9;72:24;73:7,16;

 75:7;76:16;77:3,23;

 82:10,11,14;85:25;

 86:2;87:3,4,14,22,23,

 25;88:15;91:5;92:2;

 94:10,24;96:16;97:1;

 99:4,15;100:10;102:1,

 4;103:9,14,15;107:23;

 114:21;115:6,15,16;

 116:10,11;117:6,8;

 118:6;119:16;121:1,

 19,23;122:12,23;124:2,

 10;128:5;129:2,5,12,

 13;131:2,25;134:21;

 137:7;139:25;141:19,

 20,22;145:25;148:13;

 150:16;153:8,22;

 157:5,15,18,18,20;

 159:20;163:9;169:4;

 171:22;175:11,21;

 179:1;184:6;186:1,14;

 187:5,20;189:3;

 191:17;192:15,22;

 193:18;199:6,8;204:8;

 205:5;207:10;208:13;

 209:10;210:14;211:22;

 214:2,7;218:12,13;

 223:10,15,17;226:15,

 17;228:14,19;230:14,

 14,22;232:13;233:8;

 234:14;245:4;246:7;

 247:23;254:23;258:5,

 8,24;259:4,9;260:22;

 263:6;264:4;271:12;

 277:4;280:17;281:19;

 282:1,2;283:2;285:17;

 286:10,12,21,22;287:7;

 289:5;290:8,16;296:5;

 298:24;300:18;301:19

cancel (1)

 177:2

cancer (2)

 88:24;236:12

candid (2)

 43:6;291:14

candidly (1)

 271:2

cap (9)

 48:11,13,13;49:21;

 60:20;116:15;131:4;

 134:9,14

capable (2)

 35:8;224:24

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(4) billion - capable Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 307

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

Capital (2)

 127:1;278:20

capped (18)

 36:9;44:25;45:6,21;

 57:23;58:4,20;196:4,6,

 10;197:5,6,22;198:2,9;

 229:13,14,15

caps (1)

 229:18

card (2)

 115:14;215:12

care (14)

 6:19;7:14;39:15;

 89:17;111:1,22;114:3;

 118:15;138:24;139:10;

 141:24;164:9,9;253:11

career (1)

 160:18

careful (4)

 27:15;211:7;243:16;

 267:21

cares (4)

 93:3,3;133:21,24

Carnac (1)

 115:11

Carolina (1)

 160:7

carry (2)

 114:8,16

cars (1)

 106:11

Carson (1)

 115:12

Cascade (1)

 42:19

case (205)

 11:19;13:16,18;14:2;

 16:24;18:23,25;19:4;

 37:19;41:16;45:7,12,

 12,13,14;47:17;48:23,

 24;57:20;67:10;68:11,

 23;70:9,17,20;72:8,9;

 73:21;75:16;80:9;

 81:20;85:16,17;90:10;

 91:17,18,25;92:19;

 93:6,16;97:24;99:16;

 103:20,21;104:7,11,17;

 105:8;107:13;108:8,8;

 111:2,4,7;112:6,19;

 113:1;114:12;119:23;

 120:2,7;121:1,21;

 123:16;125:5,5;126:4;

 127:18,25;129:24,24;

 130:21;131:22;132:1;

 134:11;135:6;138:18,

 19;139:5,6,12,13;

 142:9,14;143:22;

 144:4;145:20;146:24;

 150:11;159:16,25;

 160:1,5,6,6,16;161:3;

 167:3,24;169:2;

 173:24;177:17;179:3;

 190:1;191:17,18;

 192:2;194:10;196:17,

 19;197:12;198:2,5,6,

 22,22;199:20;200:6,14,

 25;201:1;205:20,20;

 209:23;211:10,11;

 213:9;214:1,25;

 215:22;217:4,8;218:1;

 220:22;221:21,23;

 223:16;224:1,10,15;

 226:16;231:9;232:12;

 234:18;235:1;237:17;

 238:13,15;245:2,4,9;

 251:4;252:19,22;

 255:14,15;257:2;

 258:1;259:6,14,14,15,

 18,18;260:3;261:21;

 264:9,11;265:4,5;

 266:15;267:12,15;

 268:24;270:21;272:25;

 273:9;275:5,9,13,16;

 278:4,19;285:21;

 286:23;289:7;291:4,6,

 7,8,10,12,21,23;

 292:23;293:3,6,23;

 294:6,12;295:8,23;

 297:11,11;302:6

cases (68)

 18:16,21;20:6;23:3;

 33:2,2;35:21;38:2,4;

 39:20;45:9,11;48:18;

 51:19;57:22;67:24;

 68:11;72:10;83:21,21;

 85:20;87:1;88:21;89:7,

 7;90:11;91:3;93:1,20;

 95:15,18;102:13;

 106:11;109:5,11;

 110:24;121:18;125:20,

 22;127:14,16;152:4;

 154:21,23;176:8;

 196:8,23;197:17,20,22;

 207:1;209:21;217:6;

 220:20;226:13;231:23;

 237:12;254:10;258:17;

 265:3;267:14,16;

 271:11;289:21,23;

 290:4;295:13;297:23

cash (1)

 62:16

casual (1)

 6:5

categories (2)

 31:11;100:11

category (3)

 31:14;101:12;110:12

causation (27)

 31:24;89:10,11;

 103:9;107:7,8;108:23;

 113:1;116:4,5,6;118:2;

 132:22;152:16;163:5;

 172:7;196:14;197:4;

 226:20;230:21;253:18;

 258:9;260:10,25;

 265:8;295:17;297:20

cause (13)

 29:19;86:22;103:4;

 112:21;141:7,9,10;

 163:5;164:4;239:6;

 240:6;285:22;286:25

caused (6)

 29:16;96:23;100:24;

 137:17;163:10;251:1

causing (3)

 96:7;103:5;163:11

caution (1)

 166:22

cavalier (1)

 85:12

cede (1)

 169:4

center (1)

 5:13

central (1)

 276:3

cents (2)

 282:11;284:22

cert (1)

 120:8

certain (8)

 68:12;70:20;80:17;

 155:7;165:2;172:19;

 230:5;255:22

certainly (31)

 16:23,24;19:5,23;

 36:23;39:14;58:4;

 65:25;71:23;74:14;

 98:8;109:19;122:17;

 159:23;181:4;185:22;

 202:9;215:9;218:17;

 222:4;242:13;249:18;

 259:5;262:8;273:23;

 279:10,13;280:4;

 281:12,15;283:16

cetera (4)

 17:1;65:8,8;145:5

CFO (1)

 176:5

chair (2)

 7:19;86:13

challenge (3)

 68:14;98:6;232:3

chamber-mate (1)

 82:2

chance (5)

 14:8;244:21;256:7;

 279:2;282:11

change (12)

 98:18;142:14;

 149:25;267:6,9,10;

 278:6,18;279:7,10,13;

 283:11

changed (6)

 22:23;93:22;134:15;

 154:2;278:21;279:12

changing (1)

 252:12

channeled (2)

 133:7,11

Chapter (4)

 13:18;19:5,5;38:7

characteristics (1)

 266:3

charge (2)

 145:20;175:20

cherry- (1)

 167:22

chew (3)

 226:15;228:14;

 246:10

chief (2)

 99:16;103:20

childhood (1)

 118:20

choice (13)

 11:8;50:13,14;63:3;

 67:17;71:3;72:18;

 83:14;86:1;147:15,16;

 171:12,16

choices (3)

 14:10;147:10;276:15

choir (1)

 161:7

choose (2)

 50:12;231:21

chooses (1)

 167:2

choosing (1)

 243:16

chop (3)

 34:17,17;113:19

chopping (1)

 113:8

chose (3)

 231:22;276:6,19

Chronicle (2)

 36:12;257:18

chronicles (1)

 257:19

cigar (1)

 269:18

circle (1)

 6:2

Circuit (8)

 81:18;91:23;119:2;

 121:21;127:11,13;

 161:2;162:1

circumstance (2)

 83:24;196:23

circumstances (13)

 43:13;68:7;72:7,10;

 171:6,6;206:12;

 249:19;251:18;253:6;

 256:1;267:24;284:18

cite (4)

 45:11;93:11;160:6,6

cited (11)

 38:3;45:7;51:7;

 52:10;71:1;83:21,21;

 126:21;127:25;197:18;

 238:13

cites (1)

 189:22

City (3)

 122:19;185:8,11

civil (7)

 34:11;105:25;

 203:25;212:19;213:3,

 12,13

claim (59)

 13:1,18,22;14:9;

 15:12;16:12,17,18;

 20:12,17;41:23;47:9,

 10,11;53:18;54:17,21,

 24,25;55:6,8,8,10,10,

 20;56:10,11,12,18,19;

 57:16,17;63:5;69:14;

 90:4,13;91:24;93:15,

 16;96:1,19;124:19;

 126:5;128:11;130:25;

 132:15;133:12;137:18;

 161:19;162:1;182:17,

 19;183:16;184:6;

 189:16;273:17,18;

 274:17;275:1

claimant (9)

 16:18;55:6;57:25;

 74:8;75:15;131:10;

 133:24;134:10;136:4

claimants (25)

 11:22;16:2;36:10;

 46:1,16;47:20;61:18;

 62:12;67:20;69:25;

 70:8;73:18;75:9;87:20;

 88:6;124:14,16;

 129:11;161:24;180:24;

 195:21;198:17;231:22;

 265:18;273:15

claimants' (1)

 286:15

claimant's (2)

 91:19;133:12

claims (102)

 7:5;11:5,16;13:19;

 14:18,21;15:5,16,21,

 21;16:2,4;19:12;21:22;

 23:14;24:2,4,23;29:13;

 37:9;42:17;45:5,5,17,

 19;46:2,4,6;49:6;

 55:23;57:14;58:6,21;

 61:22;64:8;69:1;72:24;

 73:15,17,18,24;80:18,

 21;83:1;85:17;88:19;

 89:4;90:7,14,20;91:19;

 92:24,25;124:15,17;

 125:17,25,25;126:10,

 16;127:15;128:15;

 129:24;130:1,21;

 131:14;133:1,6,6,7,11;

 136:24;152:14;158:18;

 159:13,14;160:10,13;

 161:5;162:2;181:20;

 182:7,13;183:21,23;

 197:4,7;226:14;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(5) Capital - claims Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 308

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 231:12,21;243:10;

 247:19,20;261:11;

 270:13;271:7;273:17;

 275:6,25;276:7;277:2;

 281:22

claim's (1)

 126:2

clarif (1)

 155:17

clarification (1)

 202:18

clarify (3)

 138:10;237:6;246:16

class (6)

 50:1;60:17;106:4,6;

 148:1;277:15

classes (1)

 148:4

clause (1)

 198:12

CLE (1)

 54:10

clear (35)

 16:8;23:2;26:7;

 33:10;36:14;45:15;

 50:20;58:10;65:10;

 67:7;97:13;107:23;

 118:22;129:9;140:2;

 160:8,9;161:10;166:4;

 167:14;186:12,17;

 188:8;192:12;194:4;

 207:8;215:21;231:1;

 232:2;241:14;262:22;

 274:19;285:3;286:11;

 298:8

clearly (7)

 49:8;82:5;95:24;

 102:10;114:9,9;252:13

CLERK (8)

 5:4,8,15;8:4;87:10;

 179:5;190:12;204:11

client (15)

 97:25;98:1,1;107:12;

 130:24;137:5;139:15;

 188:5;236:11,12;

 240:23;265:24;266:13,

 19;291:11

clients (13)

 113:25;117:13;

 149:17;176:10;193:24;

 217:22,22;238:9;

 239:23;247:22;277:21,

 21;296:3

clients' (2)

 182:7;287:15

client's (7)

 90:12;97:25;98:7,9;

 100:23;107:18;138:10

cloaked (1)

 274:13

clock (5)

 21:12;87:6;236:10;

 263:15;289:4

close (6)

 24:21,22;258:2;

 267:17;273:8;300:20

closely (1)

 163:22

closer (1)

 87:12

closing (4)

 151:5;170:13;187:6;

 285:18

cocounsel (1)

 210:7

co-counsel (2)

 94:6;181:12

Code (6)

 9:17;12:20;33:1;

 36:8;126:15;203:25

co-lead (1)

 90:10

collateral (2)

 243:12;244:9

colleagues (13)

 35:6;76:4;106:12;

 121:11;136:10;202:20;

 212:1;218:14;237:2;

 252:1;274:1;277:10;

 280:25

colleagues' (1)

 220:2

collect (3)

 48:5;105:6,20

collected (1)

 104:22

collection (1)

 222:1

collective (5)

 72:16,17;225:10;

 231:19;239:1

collectively (1)

 285:5

colloquy (4)

 91:2;147:2;168:23;

 190:2

co-management (1)

 222:5

comfort (1)

 280:18

comfortable (5)

 47:6;149:17;169:15;

 220:11;302:1

coming (8)

 64:15;158:11;

 190:14;194:22,23;

 198:17;215:23;253:2

comment (7)

 5:9;118:23;121:9;

 171:3;274:15;286:18,

 19

comments (6)

 109:24;151:18;

 186:11;194:3;196:2;

 234:14

commit (2)

 280:24,25

commitment (2)

 288:19;299:5

committed (1)

 175:18

committee (32)

 66:20;67:19;73:25;

 74:1;79:6;88:6;135:22,

 24,25;136:1,5;147:5,

 18,23;148:24;149:2,6,

 9,10,19;151:18;

 183:23;186:2;192:12;

 195:20;197:21,24;

 236:21;246:25;271:19;

 274:5;279:1

committees (5)

 73:25;76:2;147:17;

 192:3,15

committee's (3)

 72:21;197:15;275:4

committing (1)

 132:17

common (4)

 119:6;131:22;196:8;

 300:18

communicate (1)

 294:10

communicated (1)

 300:3

communication (1)

 254:10

communities (1)

 202:3

companies (3)

 148:2,2;191:20

company (13)

 50:11;93:10;137:12;

 154:1;208:15;252:25;

 275:25;276:5,6,14,19;

 277:24;296:22

company's (2)

 132:18;137:14

compared (3)

 89:8,24;142:20

comparison (1)

 11:2

compelling (1)

 250:25

compensated (2)

 232:6,7

compensation (5)

 23:1,2;127:9;223:13;

 232:12

competing (5)

 34:24;91:6;167:21;

 180:9;289:12

complain (2)

 286:10,12

complained (1)

 184:21

complaining (3)

 286:9;287:14,14

complaints (1)

 136:10

complete (1)

 259:9

completely (5)

 34:12;85:21;172:19;

 183:22;237:17

complex (10)

 13:16;14:14;177:22;

 209:21;223:25;226:12;

 230:21;235:1,10;

 259:14

complexion (2)

 278:4,19

complexity (5)

 156:25;217:10;

 233:1;234:15,16

complicated (8)

 30:24;34:14;61:20;

 106:6;140:24;217:6;

 249:24;259:17

complications (1)

 148:16

comply (3)

 173:19,23;232:3

component (5)

 60:22;124:21;

 177:22;200:6;230:4

components (4)

 17:11;67:8;200:22;

 201:25

compress (1)

 111:3

compressed (3)

 104:16;112:20;

 113:23

compromise (2)

 60:1,2

computer (1)

 61:11

concede (1)

 36:25

conceded (5)

 24:18;26:17;100:23;

 189:14;270:15

concedes (2)

 27:4;68:6

concept (5)

 219:17;227:10;

 274:2;275:15,15

concern (7)

 75:15;231:25;232:2;

 236:21;280:20;286:1,4

concerned (3)

 223:5;286:14,14

concerning (2)

 175:4,4

concerns (5)

 68:3,4;257:11;285:3;

 287:5

concluded (2)

 265:10;302:16

concludes (2)

 40:23;70:3

conclusion (5)

 17:2;71:2;76:23;

 175:22;177:20

conclusions (3)

 84:7;147:11;148:17

concrete (1)

 65:2

condemnation (34)

 10:2;11:12;12:3;

 13:9;28:23;29:10,14;

 30:1,18;31:16;74:25;

 75:24;76:21;81:15;

 96:1,3,7;99:4,7,25;

 100:22;102:24;105:23;

 123:18;124:9;128:4;

 129:1;162:11;165:19;

 166:1;184:12;185:6,

 10;200:1

condition (2)

 266:3;298:17

conduct (8)

 79:21;83:3,8;111:12,

 12;116:8;216:15;243:1

conducted (2)

 84:5;139:20

conductors (1)

 103:3

conducts (1)

 83:4

confer (4)

 43:10;76:16;187:17;

 299:18

conference (9)

 76:15,16;190:18,22;

 193:20;299:16;301:1,

 18;302:3

conferences (1)

 302:5

confidence (5)

 271:5;295:6,21,25;

 296:5

confident (3)

 120:22;121:8,10

configure (1)

 232:13

confirm (3)

 272:10,14,15

confirmable (1)

 198:11

confirmation (9)

 49:9;50:4;60:25;

 94:5;131:2;135:22;

 197:16;198:9;277:3

confirmed (2)

 59:8;278:12

confused (1)

 287:7

confusing (2)

 41:17;147:20

confusion (1)

 9:9

congestion (1)

 5:24

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(6) claim's - congestion Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 309

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

Congress (14)

 89:4;102:9;104:5;

 125:7,16;126:9,13,14;

 128:20;231:17;240:5;

 257:20;274:13;281:17

congressional (1)

 257:25

connection (2)

 181:19;289:18

consensual (8)

 32:8;167:8;168:8;

 196:18;197:15,23;

 198:10;245:5

consensually (2)

 23:6;298:9

consensus (1)

 15:3

consent (18)

 39:24;131:10;

 132:10;134:5;135:23,

 25;148:6,10,11,19;

 149:3;150:24;168:7,

 20;197:15;250:6;

 299:25;300:1

consented (1)

 197:21

consents (2)

 135:25;136:2

consequence (4)

 137:6;189:17;

 294:19,19

consequences (4)

 31:5;80:23;121:13;

 177:24

consider (5)

 72:13;76:21;151:23;

 241:12;297:16

consideration (3)

 74:22;249:9;250:13

considerations (1)

 166:8

considered (2)

 80:18;86:8

consistency (1)

 273:11

consistent (7)

 65:12;110:25;

 152:12;194:5;195:9;

 278:12;290:7

constituents (1)

 183:23

constitutional (2)

 96:8;232:3

constraints (2)

 10:21;224:2

constructing (1)

 21:18

construction (2)

 107:14;238:16

construed (1)

 120:2

contact (2)

 203:22;204:10

contemplate (1)

 39:14

contended (1)

 183:8

contest (3)

 177:13;211:1;226:20

contested (3)

 152:19,20,20

contesting (2)

 154:20;166:11

contests (1)

 107:8

context (20)

 9:21;11:7,14;14:13;

 18:17;24:5,6;38:6,7,

 16;57:23;61:1;109:3;

 147:24,25;152:1,4;

 166:20;176:2;289:12

contingent (3)

 25:17;182:25,25

continuance (1)

 287:19

continue (4)

 23:24,25;286:8;

 300:18

continued (1)

 190:22

continuing (1)

 241:17

contours (1)

 299:19

contract (1)

 92:24

contractual (1)

 13:20

contradict (1)

 144:23

contraire (1)

 120:5

contrary (1)

 189:4

contrast (2)

 137:11;160:12

contrib (1)

 34:8

contributor (1)

 219:12

control (10)

 91:25;111:23;204:6;

 209:15;222:24;223:1,

 3,4;272:9;280:21

controlled (1)

 209:16

controlling (3)

 93:12;127:16,18

conundrum (1)

 142:7

convene (1)

 180:15

convenience (1)

 87:5

conversation (2)

 231:2;246:1

conversations (1)

 187:13

convey (1)

 88:10

convincing (2)

 33:10;112:11

cooperate (1)

 203:10

cooperates (1)

 211:20

cooperation (1)

 210:22

coordinate (3)

 185:21;186:2,22

coordinating (2)

 219:17,20

coordination (4)

 46:15;184:18;212:2;

 214:22

copy (1)

 292:1

copyright (1)

 130:8

core (9)

 15:17;85:16;124:18;

 128:11,20,25;142:10,

 12;275:23

Corning (9)

 49:1,5;89:8,24;

 104:18,18;197:12;

 198:2,14

corporate (1)

 219:7

Corporation (1)

 5:8

correctly (3)

 35:10;51:4;171:20

correctness (1)

 150:14

cost (5)

 109:5;161:4;183:21;

 242:4;270:19

costs (2)

 245:20;270:19

Cotchett (1)

 95:4

counsel (33)

 7:1;35:11,11;90:10;

 147:5,11,22,23;148:24;

 149:1,6,9,10,11,19;

 151:3;157:13;170:8,

 15,19;180:12;183:19;

 187:17;192:11,13;

 194:15;199:16;206:18;

 252:14;253:8;255:10;

 272:1;299:18

counsels' (1)

 238:3

counsel's (1)

 193:21

count (3)

 69:8;89:20;155:19

counterpart (3)

 106:1,13,15

County (2)

 185:8;296:14

couple (24)

 5:13,25;9:1;34:16,

 16;39:8;52:14;88:8;

 99:1;127:22;164:17;

 165:24;166:7,9;

 190:15;197:19;212:14,

 15;221:7;224:24;

 242:11;253:13;254:11;

 259:13

coupling (1)

 36:25

course (24)

 9:8;15:14;30:16;

 59:24;77:3;115:13;

 117:17;123:24;128:19;

 161:14,17;168:25;

 193:21;214:7;217:12;

 244:16,20;245:16;

 247:17;251:10,14;

 268:13,15;281:1

Court (1557)

 5:3,4,6,9,15;6:15,18,

 22,24;7:3,12,16,21,25;

 8:3,5,7,10,16,21,23;

 9:1,8;10:11,20,25;11:2,

 11,17,22;12:4,7,15,18,

 20,23,23,24;13:6,10,

 12,24;14:2,5,12,16,19,

 22,24;15:1,6,8,14,19,

 23,24;16:6,15;17:5,8,

 15;18:2,10,14,19,21,

 25;19:11,13,15,23;

 20:2,7,9,11,15,16,18,

 20,23,25;21:2,4,8,13,

 14,14,20,24;22:3,15,

 25;23:5,15,17,19,21;

 24:24;25:4,7,9,11,15,

 19,21,24;26:2,9,11,14,

 20,22,24;27:1,10,13,

 21,23;28:1,3,5,6,7,9,10,

 15,17,19,22,25;29:3,8,

 9,15,21,23,25;30:3,4,4,

 8,10,12,16,22;31:1,2,4,

 8,12,18,20;32:5,7,9,12,

 14,16,20;33:9,14,19,

 23;34:1,5,9,11,19,21;

 35:3,5,19,24;36:1,3,5,

 13,17;37:7,7,7,17,20;

 38:8,10,12,14,17,20;

 39:1,4,6,13,21;40:1,8,

 10,12,18,25;41:6,7,10,

 12,14,20;42:2,8,10,22,

 24;43:3,5,14,17,22;

 44:5,7,10,12,18,21,24,

 24;45:4,4,16,18,20,23,

 25;46:3,7,18,20,22,24;

 47:1,8,12,19,24;48:2,7,

 9,11,14,17,20,22;49:1,

 3,5,8,10,15,17,19;50:3,

 6,11,17,19,22;51:2,6,

 10,14,18,20,25;52:2,4,

 7,11,13,21;53:1,4,10,

 12,14,16,20,22,25;

 54:2,6,8,16,19,23;55:5,

 7,18,21,24;56:1,3,5,7,

 13,16,18,23;57:1,8,11,

 15;58:5,7,13,17,24;

 59:1,3,7,9,11,14,19,21,

 24;60:1,15,20;61:1,6,8,

 11,14,17,25;62:2,6,8,

 13,18,21,24;63:5,6,8,

 10,13,17;64:4,7,10,12,

 14;65:10,12,17,19,21;

 66:3,6,8,10,12,14,17,

 22;67:15,20;68:16,19,

 21;69:3,5,10,16,18,21,

 24;70:1,6,11,13;71:4,6,

 9,13,15,17,19,21,23;

 72:3,20,24;73:10,13,

 22;74:11,18,24;75:2,

 12,18,21;76:7,11;77:7,

 9,13,17,21,23;78:1,4,6,

 9,11,14,17,20;79:1,5,

 21,22,23,24;80:4,10,

 14,20,22;81:4,9,11,23,

 23;82:1,5,16,18;83:4,9,

 11,23,25;84:2,5,8,9,12,

 21;85:2,4,7,9,12,18,23,

 25;86:9,11,21,25;87:4,

 8,10,11;88:3,11,18;

 89:9,11,14;90:12,17,

 21,21,24;91:1,12,14,

 21,23;92:7,9,11,16,21,

 23;93:2,5,9,17;94:2,17,

 19,23;95:1,3,6,9,13,17,

 19;96:1,2,9,13;97:5,7,

 9,11,13,15;98:12,14,

 18,23,25;99:2,5,8,10,

 15,18;100:3,5,9,12,14,

 18,20;101:3,5,8,10,12,

 18,20,25;102:4,8,12,

 18,21;103:1,17,23,25;

 104:2,4,19,24;105:1,3,

 7,9,11,24,25;106:4,10,

 16,18,20,22;107:5,10,

 17,21;108:3;109:19,20,

 22;110:1,4,7,8,10,12,

 16,22;111:9,13,18,24;

 112:9,14,16,17;113:5,

 11,14,16;114:2,6,14,

 15,18,21;115:1,3,6,9,

 11,15,17,21,24;116:1,

 17,19,22;117:7,10,21,

 23,25;118:4,8,15,17,

 21,24;119:3,7,11,19,

 20,21,23,23,24,25;

 120:1,2,4,4,6,8,13,15,

 18,20,20,20,21;121:7,

 24,25;122:1,3,6,8,12,

 15,24;123:2,8,9,14,16,

 17,21;124:2,7,13,14,

 18,20,25;125:10;

 126:20,25;127:2,5,7,9,

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(7) Congress - Court Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 310

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 10,14,16,18,20;128:13,

 17;129:16,18,20,22;

 130:11,16,18,23;131:7,

 11,12,18,25;132:4,6,

 11,12;133:4,8,15,17,

 19,22,24;134:2,18,20,

 25;135:3,5,10,12,14,

 18,24;136:4,7,9,19,21;

 137:2,11,22;138:6,8,

 18,20,23;139:2,6,10,

 16,19,24;140:2,10,20,

 22;141:1,14,24;142:3,

 7,19,25;143:8,13,15,

 20;144:4,6,9,12,16,24;

 145:1,3,12,14,25;

 146:7,13,18,23,25;

 147:1,14;148:7;151:8,

 15,22;152:5,18,23;

 153:8,11,16,21;154:1,

 4,5,6,7,8,11,15,18;

 155:2,5,6,10,14,18,24;

 156:2,6,9,11,12,13,20,

 21;157:10,14,16,22,24;

 158:6,9,15,20;159:1,3,

 5,8,11,15,22,25;160:3,

 8,9,14,15,19,23;161:2,

 7,10,15,18,23;162:8,

 13,21,24;163:1,3,7,13,

 15,19,23;164:7,16;

 165:7,11,14,18,22;

 166:6,15,21;167:2,5,7,

 10,12,16,18,25;168:3,

 19;169:1,5,11,19;

 170:2,5,7,21,23;171:4,

 7,10,12,15,17,21,24;

 172:9,12,16,25;173:8,

 11,15,17,22;174:1,5,9,

 11,17,21,24;175:1,9;

 176:3,9,14,18,22;

 177:3,15,21;178:2,4,9,

 12,13,16,21,23;179:1,

 4,6,12,15,18;180:5,18,

 21,23;181:1,7,16,22;

 182:4,9,16,19,23;

 183:3,6,9,12,24;184:2,

 5,8,11,15,20;185:2,4,

 13,17,20;186:4,7,23;

 187:3,5,8,11,14;

 188:11,16,19;190:7,10,

 13;192:8,11;194:18,20,

 22,25;195:3,7,19;

 196:12;197:6,7,9,12;

 198:7,24;199:2,4,8,13,

 18,22;200:9,23;201:1,

 6,6,15,19;202:2,4,7,15,

 17,22,25;203:2,12,15,

 18,20,21,22;204:3,5,7,

 9,14,16,20,22,23,23,24;

 205:1,7,8,9,11,14,19,

 21,22,24;206:2,9,11,

 18,22,24;207:4,7,12,

 23;208:2,4,6,11,14,22,

 25;209:2,4,7,10,11,13,

 14,18,22;210:1,3,6,11,

 14,20,23,25;211:5,7,

 14,17,19,22;212:4,8,

 11,18,20,23;213:1,10,

 11,14,16,21,24;214:9,

 11,23;215:6,10,21,25;

 217:7,10,13,15,17;

 218:6,22,22,24;219:1,

 2,10,13,16,20,22;

 220:1,10,13,16,21,23;

 221:2,6,14,20;222:6,

 18,20,23;223:1,4,8,15,

 18,20;224:3,4,5,7,9,12,

 13,18,21,23;225:2,7,9,

 11,14,23;226:1,3,8,21,

 21,24;227:1,5,7,9,9,12,

 14,18,19,19,21,22,24,

 24;228:2,5,11,13,15,

 25;229:5,10,15,18,21;

 230:7,10,17,24;231:1;

 232:18,19,20,21,23,25;

 233:5,7,10,13,16,21,23,

 24;234:3,5,8,11,14,17;

 235:1,5,12,14,20,23,

 25;236:2,5,7,16,18,20,

 23,25;237:2,5,10,11,

 16,18,20;238:2,13,17,

 22,24;239:9,12,14,15,

 16,19,21,24;240:1,22;

 241:2,3,7,11,19,21;

 242:3,9,16,19,22;

 243:3,5,7,18,18,23;

 244:1,3,8,13,18,23;

 245:11,13,18;246:2,4,

 12,13,17,19,21;247:2,

 5,7,10,14,17;248:2,14,

 16,19,24;249:1,4,9,10,

 11,12,15,18;250:5,8,

 12,14,20;251:3,14,16,

 23;252:5,10,21;253:1,

 6,20,22,25;254:6,7,12,

 15,20,23;255:7;256:1,

 9,11,19;257:1,4,7,9,11,

 13;258:11,22,24;259:2,

 10,15,21;260:4,6,8;

 261:1,2,13,16,18,19,23,

 25;262:6,15,17,21,25;

 263:2,5,10,12,14,19;

 264:2,10,12,20,21;

 265:2,12,16,20,23;

 266:6,9,12,15,22,24;

 267:1,3,5,7,10,16,21;

 268:7,11,14,16,23;

 269:5,8,10,15,18,23,

 25;270:3,10,14,24;

 271:5,5,8,13,15,19,25;

 272:2,8,12,16,19;

 273:3,7,10,13,19,21;

 274:1,2,4,8,12,14,18,

 20,23;275:4,7,14,22;

 276:2,4,7,11,14,18,20,

 22,25;277:1,3,7,9,17;

 278:1,3,5,7,11,23,25;

 279:13,19,22;280:1,3,

 7,11,14,22;281:7,9,12;

 282:6,10,17,19,22,24;

 283:19,21,24;284:1,7,

 11,15,17,19,25;285:7,

 9,17;286:5,10,12,17;

 287:2,7,12,20;288:3,5,

 10,12,15,18,22,24;

 289:3,15,23;290:10,14,

 20,23;291:1,4,7,9,16,

 19;292:2,3,5,9,11,13,

 14,16,18,20,21,25;

 293:4,7,12,14,17,25;

 294:1,3,4,6,9,15,21,23,

 24;295:6,16,18;296:9;

 297:4,6,10,24;298:1,4,

 8,14;299:1,3;300:10,

 14,15,22,23;301:3,7,

 12,14,17,24;302:1,4,

 10,14

courtesy (1)

 180:14

courtroom (17)

 5:11,12,16;26:6;

 34:16;71:24;74:16;

 87:13;93:19;102:3;

 149:12;173:19,21;

 190:13;222:24;223:6;

 302:4

courtrooms (1)

 5:20

courts (9)

 10:4;18:17;122:22;

 139:12;205:14;214:15;

 234:15;251:20;275:8

Court's (21)

 11:12;15:17;49:13;

 108:4;123:7;180:21;

 187:9;196:22;222:22;

 223:10;226:6;230:15,

 20;237:11;239:10;

 257:3,12;270:20;

 272:14;292:17;297:5

cover (4)

 20:20;24:4;67:1;

 138:13

covered (1)

 138:15

CPC (1)

 225:20

CPUC (2)

 26:7;223:6

cramdown (2)

 197:16;198:3

crammed (1)

 135:23

Cravath (2)

 8:8;256:23

CRAWFORD (35)

 79:2,3,5,6;80:1,6,12,

 15,21;81:3,7,22,25;

 82:4,20,22;83:10,18,

 24;84:1,3,11,20;85:1,3,

 5,8,11,15,19,24;86:4,

 10,11;147:12

crazy (1)

 150:22

create (2)

 70:18;149:14

created (2)

 62:15;255:24

creating (6)

 44:25;45:6,21;58:20;

 149:5;160:16

creative (1)

 224:11

credible (1)

 189:3

creditor (1)

 284:21

creditors (9)

 50:1;70:23;96:25;

 198:10;231:12,23;

 273:15;277:25;278:14

creditors' (6)

 147:5;148:23;149:2,

 6,18;279:1

creditor's (2)

 176:6;192:11

criminal (6)

 19:19;205:15;

 212:17,19;213:2;

 234:21

critical (11)

 15:24;17:12;29:4;

 46:8;47:5;51:23;79:11;

 112:23;270:20;297:20;

 298:23

criticize (3)

 35:6;43:8;187:23

crop (1)

 232:17

cross (3)

 121:3;184:9;278:21

cross- (1)

 266:24

cross-examine (1)

 98:6

cross-section (1)

 267:11

crowd (2)

 5:10;6:9

cumbersome (2)

 84:9,22

current (1)

 267:24

Currently (1)

 115:8

Curtis (1)

 257:1

cut (2)

 164:12;168:3

cutting (1)

 277:17

D

Dalkon (2)

 89:12,13

damage (18)

 13:15;96:19;103:5;

 107:24,25;109:4;

 112:22,22;142:8,21;

 143:1;182:20;201:4,

 24;215:19;217:20;

 228:23;290:4

damages (53)

 24:16;26:14;31:11,

 14;69:23;90:8;96:12,

 25;97:8,21,22,25;98:7;

 100:2,5,6,8,13;107:19,

 24;108:2,5,9;113:7,25;

 116:11;142:11,16,16,

 18;152:6,8;162:22;

 193:16;200:12,13;

 201:3,8;202:11;

 207:20,22;210:5;

 215:11;218:19;226:11;

 227:4;228:20;261:20;

 282:3,4,16;283:18;

 290:1

damned (1)

 173:5

danger (1)

 239:18

Daniel (1)

 7:8

dark (1)

 257:16

data (23)

 120:3;141:19;143:3,

 12,12;144:14,16,21,21,

 22;146:21;152:5,18;

 153:22;154:8,12;

 242:9;251:21;267:18;

 270:17,18;279:15,16

database (1)

 300:14

datapoint (9)

 201:7,7,9,11,22;

 202:12;224:17,18,20

datapoints (2)

 201:17,25

date (44)

 10:23;23:11,12;24:3;

 73:15,17,18,24;75:14;

 124:12,16;128:11,25;

 139:22;158:19,22;

 159:10;160:14;161:6,

 11;162:3;167:2,19,20;

 169:20;173:20;179:4;

 185:23;186:13;192:2,

 13;203:24;204:12;

 205:10;206:7;210:2;

 213:18;215:5;217:25;

 218:4;250:13;278:22;

 286:2,8

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(8) courtesy - date Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 311

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

dates (4)

 139:23;164:2;192:6;

 215:8

day (62)

 14:3;19:19;23:2;

 33:3;41:21;55:10,15;

 94:8;96:4,11,18;97:8;

 99:2;100:21;110:24;

 112:4;132:11;134:5;

 140:9;161:12,18,19;

 162:4;175:10;200:10;

 204:16;207:24;214:1;

 215:16;216:13;223:6,

 20;224:13;233:22;

 235:4;240:12;245:24;

 246:5;256:4;257:15,

 17,19;261:2,4;264:7,8;

 270:15;271:7;274:7,

 24;283:12;285:4;

 286:20;288:14,16;

 290:5,11,19;299:4,21;

 300:25;301:4

days (38)

 34:16;146:22;150:3;

 169:9;179:9,10;

 188:21;190:20;204:22,

 23;205:23;206:2,3,6,7;

 208:3,23;209:21,21,24;

 211:21;215:13,15;

 217:25;227:1;230:1,1;

 234:2;249:5,21;

 258:12;261:5;263:22,

 22;286:6;290:6,6,22

days' (1)

 204:24

de (38)

 142:7;146:22;

 194:21,24;195:1,5,7;

 235:15,18,22,24;236:1,

 3,6,8,17,19,24;237:1,4,

 6,19;238:1,20;239:8,

 10,13,16,20,22,25;

 240:1,21,25;241:3,10,

 17,20

deadline (19)

 67:7,23;72:8,25;

 109:11;161:1;171:25;

 172:2;175:16;176:20;

 177:24;193:3;276:10,

 12;277:8,19,22;280:2;

 281:22

deadlines (2)

 82:11;177:8

deal (27)

 13:14;27:17;30:5,12;

 31:24,25;32:1;53:8;

 58:9,11;100:1;109:3;

 121:17;140:6;146:15;

 150:24;174:12;183:10;

 184:12;190:7;200:5;

 235:4;253:18;254:3;

 256:15;257:23;267:25

dealing (15)

 54:21,21;58:25;

 89:18;107:3,3;126:15;

 141:15,18;179:21;

 196:3,9;232:16;271:3,

 4

deals (3)

 107:7;111:11;126:19

dealt (10)

 20:13;27:22;40:14,

 14;55:11;57:22;

 160:17;185:15;224:2;

 255:16

death (8)

 36:21;43:24;112:21;

 129:6;148:21;202:9,

 10,12

deaths (3)

 112:18;216:10,10

debate (1)

 128:21

debated (1)

 194:8

debating (1)

 282:19

debtor (21)

 12:7,8;22:5;89:20;

 96:20,22;98:5;99:19;

 111:12;123:19;124:8,

 9;127:21;181:2;184:5,

 8;191:22;196:4;

 218:10,10;274:19

debtors (28)

 6:25;8:9;22:7;36:22;

 60:12;75:6;76:14,20;

 83:20;119:18;124:10;

 149:10;154:19;156:17,

 22;157:3;158:17;

 160:6;162:7;166:13,

 23;191:10;192:3,15;

 198:3;249:22;250:5;

 256:24

debtors' (4)

 7:1;67:11;125:3;

 251:19

debtor's (9)

 147:22;151:19;

 152:6;162:7;164:2,14;

 183:7;197:18;285:12

December (3)

 143:5;208:7;286:2

December-to-January (1)

 75:10

decide (30)

 12:5,7;21:8;22:7;

 29:8;37:13;57:5;58:19;

 91:16;99:20;114:11;

 117:8;120:4;121:16;

 124:21;128:2,21;

 129:1,12;145:25;

 165:3;167:6;177:12;

 180:21;188:3;197:7;

 275:1,6;277:2;284:24

decided (15)

 22:1;60:3;96:4;

 121:21;150:8,9,9;

 156:15;165:4;185:21;

 188:24;192:16;214:16;

 251:13;294:24

decider (1)

 124:10

decides (3)

 137:12;218:3;274:8

deciding (2)

 91:7;127:11

decision (60)

 17:24;28:5;37:11,11,

 13,19;38:18;42:25;

 63:20;65:4;68:14;75:4;

 76:18;81:5,6;82:2,6;

 83:16;84:18,25;86:2,2,

 6;122:23;123:7;124:3,

 15;128:5,8;129:13;

 130:20;150:4,15,15;

 151:20;160:7;161:1,3;

 165:1;166:18;177:22;

 179:22;200:19,20;

 218:16;248:13;249:2;

 264:12,15;282:15;

 283:15;285:1;287:9,

 21,24;293:18;294:22;

 295:14,14,16

decision-maker (2)

 17:18;232:11

decision-making (1)

 246:8

decisions (11)

 28:12;75:4;82:25;

 83:7;110:17;119:20;

 128:10;156:3;160:22;

 246:4,6

decision's (1)

 150:5

declaration (5)

 130:9,11;141:5,6,8

declare (2)

 6:12;170:11

decree (1)

 134:5

default (1)

 6:12

defective (1)

 106:10

defend (2)

 12:8;30:5

defendant (7)

 96:20;97:21;98:3,6;

 112:8;113:7;216:17

defendants (2)

 39:23;96:21

defended (1)

 129:2

defense (5)

 13:2;114:15,16;

 118:6;259:24

defenses (1)

 116:2

defer (5)

 15:1;59:1;180:2,6;

 225:17

define (2)

 117:14;188:20

defined (3)

 105:16;126:10;

 127:12

defines (1)

 64:7

definitely (2)

 269:6,9

definition (4)

 125:24;126:3,5;

 263:17

degree (2)

 284:15;295:25

delay (23)

 16:22,24;71:2;72:10;

 75:4;104:8,9,10,12;

 174:8;176:1,2,9;180:6;

 214:20;231:8;254:2;

 260:17;278:10;286:16;

 287:11,16,19

delayed (2)

 75:7;255:12

delays (1)

 286:14

demanding (1)

 218:4

denied (5)

 119:25;120:3;

 121:25;161:19;272:20

denies (1)

 239:14

Dennis (1)

 5:5

denominator (2)

 136:19;282:7

denominator's (1)

 61:18

deny (5)

 117:3,3,11;211:9;

 281:16

denying (2)

 75:25,25

department (1)

 182:10

depend (1)

 279:11

dependent (2)

 25:1;207:10

depending (6)

 15:12;62:11;86:5;

 189:24;202:1;290:18

depends (3)

 91:13;138:4;208:12

deprived (1)

 274:16

deputy (2)

 190:13;302:4

describe (1)

 90:11

described (1)

 56:10

describing (2)

 218:9;298:16

deserve (1)

 79:18

deserves (1)

 95:23

designate (1)

 192:12

designated (1)

 236:14

despite (1)

 136:10

destroyed (3)

 22:23;297:15,21

detail (2)

 153:1,4

details (4)

 63:25;65:6;109:23;

 204:10

determination (15)

 38:5;49:10;60:5;

 68:24;69:22;104:8;

 128:16;134:6;162:14;

 202:10;243:10;245:14;

 257:20;293:13;296:6

determine (12)

 13:24;60:22;115:25;

 116:12;119:19;166:13;

 181:3;182:13;183:16;

 232:11;255:23;295:5

determined (5)

 34:6;59:9;133:1;

 238:7;297:19

determines (2)

 61:2;99:3

determining (1)

 144:19

develop (1)

 109:18

developed (1)

 46:14

dialogue (1)

 285:25

dice (2)

 43:23;262:8

dicta (2)

 45:13;132:1

dictate (2)

 273:16;296:18

die (2)

 130:14;239:23

Diego (1)

 120:7

diff (1)

 74:24

differ (5)

 15:11;97:1;124:21;

 218:25;297:3

difference (15)

 29:6;30:12;51:12,16;

 92:4;121:5;182:24;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(9) dates - difference Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 312

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 186:13;195:14;239:6;

 241:5;262:23;266:2,5;

 287:18

different (58)

 9:25;14:22,23;16:12;

 17:9,22;24:19;31:9;

 40:22;42:3;56:9;59:18;

 62:4,9;63:1;73:3;

 76:22;80:11;86:19;

 89:16;90:8,8;100:2;

 111:25;116:7;120:9,

 11,14;124:5;132:21;

 137:13;139:5,6;

 146:10;149:14,20,21,

 21;154:19;163:21;

 178:16,17,17,18,19;

 191:2;201:23;202:3;

 221:19;245:23;253:22;

 263:11;270:10;273:4;

 284:6;293:6;298:12;

 302:6

differently (3)

 19:7;62:12;137:13

difficult (10)

 27:16;36:18;118:20;

 189:1;224:15;226:17;

 232:14;252:11;277:24;

 290:2

direct (5)

 149:9;160:21;

 193:21;241:25;265:4

directly (4)

 74:22;97:4;170:13;

 241:25

disability (1)

 237:9

disadvantage (1)

 279:2

disagree (9)

 10:6;32:9;105:3,7;

 132:7;133:2;194:7;

 240:17;298:24

disagreed (1)

 149:4

disagrees (2)

 67:12;212:23

disallowance (1)

 11:15

disallowing (3)

 158:18;159:14;

 160:10

discharge (3)

 19:6;198:13;235:23

dischargeability (2)

 38:7;275:11

dischargeability's (1)

 38:10

disclosing (1)

 192:17

discourage (1)

 94:6

discovery (35)

 11:14;16:22;65:8;

 90:20;107:15;108:22;

 109:12;117:4;141:17;

 145:23;173:16,18;

 174:22;178:7;184:16,

 17,18;187:22;188:2,9,

 15;193:25;211:21;

 213:25;222:1;255:15;

 258:16,18;261:9,15;

 262:2,12,17,19,23

Discovery's (1)

 262:18

discreet (1)

 88:22

discrete (1)

 272:22

discretion (12)

 41:6;42:12;91:4,8;

 102:14;196:22,24;

 197:3,14;217:24;

 261:5,7

discretionary (1)

 35:1

discuss (6)

 10:24;65:6;148:25;

 228:19;237:14;299:19

discussed (10)

 30:22;65:16;67:4;

 79:9;91:17;125:5;

 156:4;221:25;285:23;

 299:10

discussing (2)

 44:20;230:12

discussion (30)

 12:1;23:17;63:25;

 69:13;76:3;94:22;

 102:9;105:18;109:23;

 145:17;148:9;150:19,

 21;151:5;161:11;

 168:13;172:9;183:14;

 185:14;186:20;189:7,

 23;190:25;193:20;

 194:7;228:18;282:24;

 286:3;293:8;294:12

discussions (6)

 23:8;36:19;64:23;

 152:2;187:10;193:25

disdain (1)

 277:5

disease (1)

 126:5

diseased (1)

 164:11

disentangle (2)

 162:8,8

dismiss (1)

 28:2

dismissed (1)

 238:23

disparate (1)

 61:22

disposal (1)

 291:16

dispose (2)

 28:24;299:6

disposition (1)

 84:14

dispositive (4)

 17:22;167:20;

 240:17;243:9

dispute (3)

 44:23;105:23;184:5

disputed (4)

 96:11;102:6;182:25;

 228:16

disputes (1)

 69:4

disputing (2)

 48:12;103:22

disrespect (1)

 253:19

dissent (1)

 150:1

dissented (1)

 150:2

dissertation (1)

 191:21

disservice (1)

 90:1

distinguishable (1)

 183:22

distinguished (1)

 218:7

distress (14)

 36:24;37:2,10;40:16;

 80:18;83:1;128:6,19,

 20;129:7,8,11;130:5;

 148:22

distrib (1)

 59:11

distributing (1)

 57:24

distribution (20)

 37:8,13;54:25;57:7,

 17,17;58:21;59:4,16;

 60:8,22;61:4;70:21;

 131:1;134:15;196:7;

 278:1,5,13,15

distributions (1)

 70:19

district (53)

 5:19;21:14;28:6;

 37:12,13;38:14;39:3,

 17;40:1,4,12,18;41:2;

 44:3;45:16;52:22,23,

 23,24;53:2,5,6;63:6;

 79:22;81:4,5,12,20;

 82:7,9;83:4;84:8,25;

 85:10;90:21;95:16;

 114:5,21;131:11;

 146:23;147:14;150:10,

 13;160:7;161:2;170:2,

 2;221:24;230:3;

 234:17,18;246:4;275:7

district- (1)

 142:6

district-court (1)

 80:7

divide (5)

 37:4;47:21;86:20;

 157:18;264:23

divided (1)

 195:13

doable (1)

 231:7

docket (3)

 181:15;192:14;302:9

dockets (1)

 191:24

doctors (1)

 130:3

doctrine (3)

 17:20;31:2;100:22

dollar (5)

 24:9;200:21;230:5;

 282:11;284:22

dollars (30)

 13:22;14:6;17:2;

 23:14;24:4,8,12,17;

 31:19;41:23;46:12;

 47:10,19;60:4,8;62:1;

 109:3,7,8;134:7;

 136:13;137:17,18;

 158:18;160:13;163:16;

 182:10;200:17;201:13;

 269:20

done (93)

 12:6;14:10;18:2;

 35:13,20;41:21;52:3;

 60:9,11,13,14;61:8,11,

 12,12;72:24;80:6,8;

 88:17,22;105:5;

 108:12;109:14,17;

 110:20;117:5;118:2,3,

 7,9;120:24;121:4,22;

 122:21;129:13;137:8;

 139:3;140:17;144:2,4;

 145:13;158:21;175:23;

 177:6;184:12;191:22;

 193:12;200:5,18;

 201:2;203:11;206:15,

 16;207:20;208:19;

 210:17,18;211:3,21;

 214:7;216:5;217:8;

 220:5,19;221:17;

 223:17;225:4;230:7,

 12,15,15;233:3;

 253:10;254:11,18;

 255:7,16;258:5,5,8;

 259:9;260:22,24;

 264:4;268:2,4;270:22,

 25;286:22;290:9;

 291:20,20;301:19

double (1)

 186:25

doubling (2)

 112:21,22

doubt (4)

 32:24;84:13;183:18;

 233:17

Dow (7)

 41:17;45:12,13;89:8,

 24;198:2,14

down (29)

 5:13,14;12:25;77:10;

 82:3;93:1;101:22;

 122:16;135:23;164:12;

 169:8;175:19;188:9;

 214:5;226:9,10;

 241:11;250:5,17;

 258:1;261:1,20;

 265:13;270:16;272:7;

 277:17;279:7;287:9;

 297:17

downside (1)

 245:21

dozen (1)

 237:12

Dr (2)

 130:8,11

dramatically (1)

 278:21

drawn (1)

 254:9

dress (1)

 6:6

Dreyer (1)

 203:4

drill (2)

 169:8;302:5

drive (1)

 32:6

drop (1)

 39:7

due (19)

 74:12;75:25;105:19;

 109:15;117:13;123:24;

 139:25;161:15;172:4,

 6;176:24;177:2,4,12;

 178:18;232:4;253:11;

 273:11;274:6

due- (1)

 73:19

due-process (3)

 105:5;138:15;173:13

Dumas (7)

 26:12;49:19;52:13;

 121:9;140:9;239:3;

 274:5

dunk (2)

 121:3,21

Dunne (1)

 149:22

duplication (1)

 84:4

during (2)

 76:16;300:12

duty (2)

 37:15;114:6

dynamics (1)

 279:8

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(10) different - dynamics Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 313

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

E

earlier (18)

 72:22;121:9;152:3;

 157:24;180:8;186:14;

 194:8;203:6;208:10;

 211:12;215:12;243:1;

 258:22;259:7;262:22;

 270:6;278:7;300:12

earliest (3)

 26:17,18;70:10

early (3)

 75:6;166:25;209:23

earth (2)

 211:11;214:4

easier (5)

 43:12;141:22,24;

 142:5;246:10

easily (2)

 37:3;236:25

Eastern (2)

 53:1,5

easy (7)

 10:2;13:3;28:24;

 38:10;73:11;183:3;

 187:7

economic (4)

 107:24;108:6,9;

 297:1

educate (1)

 105:24

education (1)

 241:18

Edward (1)

 185:7

effect (7)

 93:4;149:5;152:2;

 158:2;161:3;246:23;

 247:20

effective (2)

 59:14;235:2

effectively (2)

 11:15;159:13

efficiency (1)

 216:25

efficient (8)

 22:25;84:24;85:3,6,

 9;108:17;122:9;276:9

effort (1)

 67:11

efforts (3)

 23:4;258:18;300:19

eight (19)

 69:7;92:16;155:12,

 16,19;191:25;200:15,

 16,17;201:9;236:14,

 16;246:15;252:2;

 259:16,16;260:2;

 291:10;296:10

eight- (1)

 284:11

eight-page (1)

 191:21

eighty (1)

 233:13

eighty-five- (1)

 265:25

eighty-five-year-old (1)

 266:18

eighty-nine (1)

 236:12

Either (29)

 6:21;13:19;27:24;

 32:22;55:14;62:16;

 68:10;72:14;75:3;76:1,

 21;121:7;129:5,7;

 149:2;153:23;161:13;

 177:18;183:1;194:15;

 213:9;232:3;242:20;

 245:8;246:6;248:10;

 296:22;298:8;299:19

either/or (2)

 151:20,24

elaboration (1)

 193:1

Electric (2)

 120:8;208:15

electrical (1)

 103:2

electronics (1)

 5:21

element (4)

 209:8;244:5;273:9;

 281:16

elements (2)

 154:3;200:24

eliminate (2)

 149:13;150:7

else (27)

 13:12;21:15;22:5;

 39:23;40:6;43:25;48:5;

 77:14;94:4;125:12;

 131:8;140:1;173:24;

 180:14;186:18,22;

 191:11;196:11;198:5,

 19;252:21;271:15;

 277:6;285:9,11;

 296:24;298:18

elsewhere (2)

 132:11;275:9

emergence (1)

 53:11

emotional (16)

 36:24;37:2,10;40:16;

 80:18;83:1;126:7,11;

 128:6,19,20;129:7,8,

 10;130:4;148:21

emotional-distress (1)

 37:14

emphasize (1)

 55:23

emphatically (2)

 147:8;174:15

empire (1)

 191:21

employees (1)

 297:15

encompasses (2)

 140:25;142:11

end (42)

 10:1;11:18,19,19;

 14:3;15:11;19:1;41:21;

 47:4,5;49:4;55:10,15;

 58:9,21;61:18;70:21;

 118:25;121:22;134:4;

 135:1;177:11;192:20;

 198:16;200:10;208:7;

 215:16;224:19;226:23;

 230:2;242:12;245:24,

 25;246:5;256:3;264:7,

 8;265:8;272:10;277:4;

 278:12;283:12

ended (1)

 139:7

ends (1)

 153:19

energization (1)

 89:18

enforces (1)

 237:21

engage (1)

 222:9

enjoy (1)

 277:11

enormous (5)

 102:13;112:6;

 129:10;147:25;231:20

enough (17)

 22:4;49:8,11,13;

 65:10;105:11;114:11;

 115:11,25;128:2;

 198:18;201:22;213:4,

 7;271:3;295:9,12

Enron (1)

 191:19

ensure (3)

 55:1;114:21;232:8

enter (2)

 77:3;187:11

entering (1)

 166:23

enters (1)

 179:9

entire (7)

 22:22;72:16;148:6;

 197:4;207:15;278:4;

 297:19

entirely (5)

 25:16;42:7;162:2;

 270:9;278:18

entirety (1)

 281:22

entities (1)

 87:21

entitle (1)

 113:24

entitled (12)

 23:1;112:19;113:25;

 117:13;205:5;217:1;

 233:8;234:1;237:23;

 240:24;252:13;257:22

entitlement (6)

 16:10;61:2;100:11;

 189:11;232:12;241:15

entitlements (2)

 238:18;286:16

equal (2)

 257:23;296:14

equally (3)

 116:10;160:9;281:20

equipment (7)

 89:18;96:23;100:23;

 116:7;141:6;250:25;

 251:2

equity (4)

 8:17;135:2;151:19;

 198:11

eradicated (1)

 109:15

err (2)

 104:19;284:20

erroneous (1)

 268:19

error (1)

 93:11

escape (1)

 25:23

especially (2)

 118:11;197:17

essence (1)

 198:4

essentially (3)

 215:7;273:16;275:25

establish (8)

 102:1;108:23;

 114:16;124:17;196:23;

 205:5;257:24;264:10

established (1)

 207:19

establishing (2)

 196:10;218:7

estima (1)

 25:22

estimat (1)

 42:8

estimate (55)

 11:9;13:1,24;14:5,6,

 9;15:25;18:17;25:25;

 37:8;41:22,23,25;

 42:16;45:5,19;55:7;

 71:16;88:19;89:3;

 108:17;112:12;114:8;

 131:20,20;142:16;

 146:21;159:13;171:8;

 184:8;196:13;197:6;

 200:2;201:2,3,9;207:8;

 208:8;209:1,3;210:7;

 228:5,8;231:18;

 265:19;271:6;277:2;

 280:13,15,16;281:19;

 284:9;289:7;290:8;

 291:13

estimated (21)

 49:5,11;55:12;88:19;

 90:16,21;91:19;108:6;

 112:20;130:25;131:2;

 133:21;142:18;143:25;

 145:10;211:15;230:4,

 5;259:15;289:19;294:6

estimates (4)

 132:25;292:22;

 293:16,20

estimating (16)

 10:10;51:18;55:1;

 76:9;90:4,7;102:16;

 124:17;133:25;134:1;

 143:7;160:8;182:7;

 196:14;228:20;298:8

estimation (268)

 9:11,11,16,22;10:1,

 10,14;11:8,14,23;

 12:11,21;13:1;14:2,4;

 16:8;17:11;18:16;

 20:14;24:20;25:2,4,13,

 17,18,21;26:13;27:3;

 30:17,19,22;31:1,4,8,

 23;33:11;35:9;36:9;

 37:12;38:6;41:2,4;

 42:3,10,11,16,21;

 44:24;49:9;51:21,24;

 52:1;54:2,4,14,20;

 55:14;57:2,6,7;58:10,

 12,19;62:15;63:23;

 64:17,20,22;65:4,6,14,

 23;67:21;68:4,25;70:7,

 9;71:1,25;72:13;75:9;

 76:7,19;79:10,19,21;

 83:3,4,10;84:6;86:7;

 88:14,21;89:4,16;

 90:19;91:3,8,17;93:12,

 25;94:3,11,14;96:20,

 21;98:9;102:4,7,12;

 104:6,8,16;105:12,15;

 106:1;107:3,3,14;

 108:16;109:6;110:18;

 111:5,20;112:10;

 113:24;116:11;117:18;

 118:9;122:16;124:22;

 125:3;128:10;129:5;

 131:23;132:24;135:5;

 136:12;137:3;138:17,

 20;139:8,20,23;140:7,

 18,19,22;143:16;

 144:19;145:7,16;

 146:1,19;148:6;

 149:12;150:5;151:12,

 14,21;152:8;154:21,

 22;158:1;162:4;168:7;

 169:17,24;171:20;

 172:1;173:20;174:18;

 175:5,11,21;178:8;

 180:10,18,22;181:4;

 182:6,14;183:9;

 186:10;187:12,15,18;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(11) earlier - estimation Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 314

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 188:1,23;189:24;

 190:18,22,24;193:12;

 194:2,5;196:6,9,22;

 197:18,20;198:15;

 199:25;200:6,22;

 213:25;218:13;219:5,

 8;220:3;225:4;226:19,

 24;227:10,16,20;

 228:11;229:5,12,25;

 230:12,16,25;231:5;

 234:24;243:25;245:14;

 248:6,20;249:3;

 250:11;251:5;254:20;

 255:2,2,21;257:23;

 258:16;260:21,22;

 262:14;263:1;268:1,6,

 8,11;269:12,16;270:2,

 14,23;273:14;275:24;

 279:14,24;281:10,11;

 284:3;287:25;288:9;

 292:7;294:20;295:25;

 298:20;299:9,11,17;

 300:13

estimation-procedures (1)

 64:2

estimation's (2)

 15:7;273:23

estimator (8)

 14:5;18:5;33:5;34:6,

 23,23;42:13;296:22

estimator's (1)

 33:21

estoppel (2)

 243:12;244:10

et (4)

 17:1;65:8,8;145:5

ethnicity (1)

 118:23

evaluate (1)

 26:15

evaluation (1)

 108:12

even (92)

 9:10;11:24;13:20;

 20:5;21:22;26:14;27:6;

 29:15,22;34:13;36:18;

 38:16;46:24;50:11;

 58:1;59:22;65:23;67:9;

 68:23,23;70:3,16;72:4;

 73:6;74:8,8,16;75:8,8,

 13;77:18;80:17;85:9;

 92:24;93:18;94:11;

 97:17;99:7;101:16;

 105:25;106:6;107:1,

 10;108:11,22;113:8,

 10;116:14;117:17;

 130:20;147:13;150:1,

 7;154:24;166:19;

 169:8;174:23;175:5;

 181:1;191:13;192:20;

 194:8;197:5;198:5;

 202:13;211:10;233:7;

 242:23;248:7;249:11,

 21;254:11,18;255:12;

 260:9,24;261:14;

 264:4;267:14;268:4,

 24;273:8;274:1,7,15;

 279:23;281:11;283:10,

 12;286:7;296:11,25

evening (1)

 302:15

event (2)

 44:2;255:18

eventual (1)

 55:2

Everybody (15)

 27:4;49:22;70:19,25;

 77:4,16;134:7;147:3;

 150:15;174:8;177:13;

 191:23;224:4,7;238:8

everyone (17)

 5:6;7:14;68:6;71:11;

 136:2;175:5;190:10;

 196:11,18;198:5,19;

 216:21,22;239:3;

 256:17;299:3;302:14

everything's (1)

 59:15

evidence (45)

 33:10;99:22;101:7,

 15,16;103:8,11,12;

 104:22,25;105:6,11,20;

 106:19;107:1,6;114:9,

 11;115:25,25;128:2;

 157:11;163:9,23;

 164:4,5,7,21;165:5;

 172:8;216:23;221:25;

 222:1;227:3;228:18;

 232:10;250:22;251:1;

 268:19;282:15;283:17;

 285:4;297:15,16,20

evidentiary (2)

 232:16;250:21

evil (1)

 191:21

eviscerated (1)

 239:16

ex (4)

 189:9;204:17,18;

 249:20

exactly (26)

 27:2;48:15,25;50:18;

 56:4;57:24;63:13;64:2;

 85:1;90:3,6;154:10;

 165:13;167:11;174:25;

 184:4,7,10;193:10;

 238:25;240:12;252:7;

 256:12;260:4;266:10;

 286:13

exaggerating (1)

 289:9

examine (1)

 21:5

example (10)

 15:10;24:6;33:15;

 81:19;82:25;173:14;

 176:4;242:15;275:9;

 279:17

examples (1)

 218:1

excellent (1)

 252:1

except (4)

 33:17;54:16;169:23;

 296:25

exception (3)

 220:10;230:16;

 237:17

exceptions (1)

 162:3

exchange (1)

 123:23

exclude (1)

 129:7

excludes (1)

 40:16

exclusivity (9)

 24:25;64:16;140:5;

 147:25;192:21,24;

 277:14;286:20;299:7

excuse (7)

 19:18;22:8;116:18;

 128:6;201:3;230:4;

 246:19

executed (1)

 117:14

exemplary (1)

 34:7

exempt (1)

 127:3

exemptions (2)

 126:15,19

exercise (5)

 24:19;111:22;

 166:22;197:3,14

exercised (1)

 196:24

Exhibit (1)

 89:15

exist (10)

 32:25;53:25;54:13,

 14,16;150:8;172:22;

 215:5;220:8;238:18

existence (1)

 73:21

exists (4)

 53:19;54:2,12;

 106:13

exit (2)

 277:24;278:20

expect (4)

 114:18;157:25;

 187:16;193:25

expectation (1)

 255:4

expecting (2)

 6:19;65:13

expediency (2)

 105:4;109:14

expediently (1)

 110:20

expedite (1)

 98:16

expedited (1)

 112:11

experience (5)

 97:15;206:10;234:9;

 275:5;293:18

experienced (6)

 37:2;182:23;183:19;

 232:18;275:18;298:16

expert (6)

 33:3;103:8;139:5;

 214:17;219:6;227:3

experts (3)

 34:24;91:6;142:24

explain (7)

 50:23;129:23;144:5;

 249:18;250:9,9;268:17

explained (4)

 125:4;133:9,10,10

explaining (2)

 50:24;90:15

explanation (2)

 22:5;126:2

explicitly (1)

 45:13

exposure (1)

 294:25

express (1)

 277:5

expressed (2)

 232:1;236:20

expressing (1)

 27:13

extend (1)

 235:8

extension (3)

 234:1;237:7,8

extensive (1)

 264:9

extent (9)

 166:14;168:12;

 193:4;216:20;247:24;

 255:20;266:17;291:9;

 299:8

extrapolate (1)

 283:13

extreme (1)

 258:19

eye (2)

 67:22;279:9

F

face (5)

 24:14;88:21;232:3;

 244:6;276:16

faced (3)

 113:7;151:20;166:15

facie (1)

 112:6

facing (3)

 267:25;268:1,2

fact (31)

 25:23;33:11;60:11;

 65:21;71:1;74:22;76:2;

 82:7;84:7;91:7;102:13;

 105:22;112:11;117:22;

 125:5;157:7,8;182:14;

 188:14;206:24;213:12;

 231:7;232:5;253:17,

 17;267:9,10;273:8;

 292:5;295:7;298:23

factor (4)

 16:25;103:4;107:8;

 143:24

factored (1)

 108:14

factors (3)

 240:7;241:12;257:2

facts (10)

 165:2;196:24;

 207:11;214:1;216:14,

 18;219:5,6;262:19,19

factual (8)

 16:20;89:17;90:18;

 96:6,11;107:6;145:9;

 251:18

factually (1)

 105:23

fail (1)

 111:22

Failing (4)

 77:3;101:19;164:11,

 12

fair (21)

 117:13;140:14;

 146:5;198:12;215:3;

 223:13;232:9;253:10;

 256:5,6;257:14;

 258:11;273:12;276:8;

 278:8;280:25;281:1,2,

 21;284:17;295:7

fairest (1)

 152:12

fairly (6)

 9:18;18:22;110:21;

 158:1;221:3;232:8

fairness (4)

 110:18;188:24;

 273:14,15

faith (1)

 184:25

falls (1)

 128:7

familiar (3)

 5:18;9:17;127:5

family (1)

 202:11

famous (1)

 291:17

fan (1)

 291:20

far (4)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(12) estimation-procedures - far Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 315

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 24:14;160:5;242:2;

 257:17

Farm (2)

 252:24;253:12

Farr (2)

 151:7;241:24

fashion (3)

 214:8;276:9;279:21

faster (3)

 249:11;260:22;

 262:11

fatal (1)

 286:16

favor (7)

 74:7;79:10;166:16;

 222:2;279:12;286:18;

 296:20

favorable (3)

 74:6;296:20;298:6

favorite (2)

 125:5;129:23

feasibility (2)

 92:19;160:9

February (10)

 70:4;167:1;215:22;

 225:2;258:10;260:25;

 264:6;279:25;286:2;

 287:6

federal (15)

 105:4,25;106:2;

 120:1,4;214:23;

 220:19;221:24;237:24;

 238:6,13,17;240:19;

 262:18;275:7

federal-state (1)

 214:21

feel (7)

 121:8;149:16;

 165:18;169:15;185:11;

 253:15;283:2

feeling (1)

 191:7

feelings (1)

 21:9

feels (1)

 253:12

fees (3)

 31:15,15;34:8

Feld (1)

 79:3

Felderstein (1)

 181:11

Feldman (4)

 15:13,15;23:7;

 270:14

Feldman's (1)

 25:17

fellow (4)

 76:3;130:7;237:2;

 296:13

felt (1)

 130:7

few (7)

 5:12;75:7;81:16;

 122:23;150:3;188:21;

 299:15

fewer (1)

 35:20

fiduciary (1)

 260:18

fifteen (3)

 8:13;87:21;200:15

fifteen-day (1)

 237:8

fifty (3)

 108:6,6;293:23

fifty-four (1)

 24:17

fifty-percent (1)

 14:8

fight (2)

 66:24;214:3

fighting (1)

 29:7

figure (14)

 24:16;41:24;43:1,11;

 59:13;77:1,6,20;79:11;

 118:11;145:16;152:8;

 177:5;298:20

figured (1)

 56:13

figures (2)

 43:1;182:11

file (11)

 13:23;73:19;112:10;

 179:5;184:6;204:11;

 205:25;206:1;276:15;

 301:20;302:9

filed (22)

 6:25;13:18;24:15;

 66:1;82:18;124:14;

 154:14;161:19;181:14;

 182:13,18;189:22;

 192:2,2;196:3;203:21;

 240:15;247:3;272:17;

 275:25;276:5;286:5

filing (6)

 23:4,11,12;66:5;

 124:19;189:16

filling (1)

 189:15

final (3)

 167:2;215:16;250:16

finally (2)

 191:23;244:15

financial (1)

 23:9

find (8)

 22:25;79:16;165:6;

 201:12;224:3;248:11;

 252:11;265:7

finding (2)

 268:19;297:9

findings (5)

 84:7,24;147:10;

 148:16;242:14

finds (1)

 266:19

fine (19)

 6:21;8:12,23;17:17;

 43:18;50:3;63:23;66:8;

 75:17;77:9;88:11;

 122:21;131:8;173:5;

 180:4;194:19;202:8;

 212:5;301:18

finger (1)

 255:5

fingers (1)

 278:21

finish (1)

 275:11

finished (3)

 162:18;201:2;220:20

fire (95)

 9:23;12:10,13;17:21,

 21;19:18;20:21,23;

 21:21;24:6,19;29:15,

 19;41:24;42:3,4,18,19;

 43:12,13;62:3,10,10,

 10,12;70:17,18;74:2;

 89:22,23;90:11;95:7;

 96:23;99:13;100:24,

 24;102:23,23;103:14;

 105:17;109:5;110:24;

 130:14;132:9,19;

 136:13;137:12,16;

 139:15;152:9,22;

 163:5,10,11;164:4,6,

 10;179:21;182:19;

 183:21;184:16,19;

 192:14;195:24;199:11;

 201:19,20;202:5,13,13;

 206:14;216:10,11,12;

 226:11,12,13;227:4;

 231:3;242:15;248:3;

 250:19,23;253:15;

 259:14,15;265:9,10,10;

 270:24;294:22,23;

 295:2;297:15,18

fires (48)

 12:17,18;13:16;

 41:24;42:5;52:23;53:4;

 89:16,20,23;96:7;

 101:13;102:25;103:6,

 10;107:4;109:13;

 113:2,3;140:24;

 142:20;154:22;157:9,

 12;162:9,10,16,23;

 163:24,24;164:19;

 172:7;175:7;177:13;

 201:21,25;226:7,9,10;

 228:8,13;231:2;

 242:13;243:7;247:25;

 270:7;276:5;280:7

FIRE's (1)

 183:20

fire-specific (2)

 42:20;99:11

firm (7)

 95:4;198:4,6;221:6,

 7;264:23;277:11

firms (1)

 264:23

first (56)

 5:10,14;9:4;17:12;

 23:2;26:6;31:10;37:10;

 86:13;90:3;91:15;

 93:21;94:7,8;99:21;

 100:20,21;109:16;

 112:4;116:3;120:17;

 140:16;148:10;154:7;

 155:16;156:9;158:13,

 15;162:9;166:9;

 170:16;176:11,19;

 191:17,18;196:3;

 197:20;216:6;219:4;

 237:6;241:9;242:5,7,

 12;243:19;261:8;

 264:14;269:2,10,12;

 275:2;286:20;289:6,

 14,17,18

fit (1)

 37:1

Fitzgerald (1)

 181:11

five (21)

 8:19;28:9;87:6,22;

 89:23;143:4;155:16;

 176:7,11,13;218:3;

 226:10,13;229:1;

 230:1;246:14;252:3;

 280:7,16;290:22,23

five-and-a-half (1)

 290:18

five-day (1)

 290:21

five-minute (1)

 87:2

fix (1)

 141:15

fixed (1)

 57:16

fixing (2)

 56:10,11

flabbergasted (1)

 250:1

flash (1)

 251:2

flawed (1)

 216:22

fleeing (2)

 130:14;202:5

flexibility (1)

 75:14

flexible (1)

 86:22

floor (3)

 5:14;6:1,4

focus (6)

 19:20;107:22;

 147:22;168:21;188:22;

 194:1

focused (3)

 22:1;168:14;198:14

focusing (3)

 181:16;193:19;

 258:24

foist (1)

 251:19

fold (1)

 20:4

foldout (1)

 226:23

folks (3)

 108:19;254:8;262:1

follow (4)

 42:14;59:5;213:17;

 232:10

following (6)

 39:24;177:5;193:5;

 196:2;230:19,20

foot (3)

 109:7,8;202:1

footnote (2)

 50:23;191:24

force (1)

 22:5

forced (1)

 233:17

forego (1)

 113:6

forehead (2)

 115:14;215:12

foresee (1)

 46:11

forests (1)

 112:22

forever (1)

 22:23

forget (6)

 41:17;114:5,5;

 127:20;188:14;231:4

forgetful (1)

 212:12

forgetting (1)

 187:24

forgot (2)

 21:16;120:9

form (5)

 90:18;115:19;175:6;

 299:16;300:3

formal (2)

 42:18;299:18

formally (3)

 6:7;42:17;132:10

format (1)

 203:13

forms (1)

 46:6

formula (1)

 105:13

formulate (1)

 226:5

forth (4)

 112:19;187:11;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(13) Farm - forth Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 316

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 214:19;268:3

forty (3)

 18:7;92:6;136:24

forty-five (9)

 8:2,12;86:17;92:8;

 195:10,11;215:17;

 261:4;272:3

forum (3)

 245:10;276:7,19

forward (25)

 67:6;83:15;141:15;

 154:18;156:17,23;

 161:21;173:4;175:21;

 177:18;180:16,22;

 182:2;194:4;198:23;

 200:3;207:20;220:3;

 222:5;240:16;249:3;

 255:21;258:17;279:3;

 296:21

foul (3)

 92:2;93:14;131:24

found (5)

 37:4;57:20;127:11;

 201:8;221:11

foundation (1)

 224:19

four (22)

 24:12;130:22;

 133:13;142:17;143:4;

 147:16;153:3,10;

 192:24;206:3;209:5;

 211:17;215:17;229:5;

 259:9,18,19;260:3;

 286:4;287:17;290:21;

 299:6

fourth (2)

 145:15;147:15

four-week (4)

 32:24;68:8;287:11;

 292:14

fraction (1)

 282:7

frame (8)

 26:10;70:12;75:11;

 153:21;180:1;223:12;

 246:5;299:8

framed (1)

 299:22

framing (1)

 154:16

FRANCISCO (11)

 5:1;36:12;87:21;

 185:9;203:21,23;

 206:11;212:18;221:25;

 227:1;257:18

Frank (1)

 95:4

Frankly (2)

 37:23;150:7

fraud (1)

 275:9

freak (2)

 223:1,4

free (2)

 68:13;295:17

frequently (1)

 220:12

Friday (2)

 23:10;193:2

frivolous (1)

 121:12

front (18)

 7:18;95:15;132:11;

 152:21;155:11;157:1;

 165:2;166:3,5,14;

 168:1;216:19;228:7;

 245:25;249:20;250:7;

 256:7;296:11

full (11)

 10:12;60:7;92:25;

 93:2;131:16;196:12;

 198:11,19,19;274:7;

 295:7

fully (3)

 156:3;211:21;290:7

fumbling (1)

 236:4

fund (9)

 24:3;49:6;55:11;

 60:18;133:2;136:21;

 211:6;282:5,12

fundamentally (1)

 110:21

funding (3)

 61:22;196:10,17

funds (1)

 283:5

further (7)

 45:1;64:24;90:22;

 151:2;187:9,10;271:13

future (5)

 5:17;22:8,9;65:6;

 188:20

G

gain (2)

 167:17;242:10

Gallagher (2)

 151:7;241:24

gambles (1)

 271:2

game (1)

 149:13

games (2)

 123:22;135:20

gap (2)

 24:22,22

gaping (1)

 235:19

Garlock (1)

 160:6

Garrett (1)

 214:24

Gas (2)

 120:7;208:15

gatekeeping (1)

 270:20

gather (1)

 278:14

gating (5)

 10:19;11:4;29:4;

 196:16,20

gave (1)

 75:13

Gawker (9)

 125:5;127:23,23;

 129:24,25;130:6,19,20,

 20

general (3)

 101:10,12;213:13

generally (2)

 205:14;234:16

General's (1)

 181:13

generous (2)

 296:23;298:9

gentleman (3)

 239:2;261:3;294:18

gentlemen (3)

 6:3;172:20;301:20

gets (27)

 34:7;48:2;50:7;55:9;

 102:14;132:12,14;

 133:12;134:11,13;

 135:6,8;136:15,15;

 143:20;168:5,16;

 180:23;213:24,24;

 219:9;230:3;231:10;

 232:7;261:3;264:4;

 281:3

GHETALDI (36)

 194:21,24;195:1,5,8;

 235:15,18,22,24;236:1,

 3,6,8,17,19,24;237:1,4,

 6,19;238:1,20;239:8,

 10,13,16,20,22,25;

 240:1,21,25;241:3,10,

 17,20

Ghost (13)

 19:17,18,23;20:20;

 21:16,21;22:10;50:12;

 132:19,21;137:12,15,

 16

gift (1)

 177:1

given (7)

 63:3;73:19;108:21;

 208:20;217:5;230:15;

 271:22

gives (4)

 176:25;207:21;

 210:5;223:20

giving (1)

 113:9

glad (4)

 115:4;247:12;

 302:12,12

global (1)

 108:13

GM (1)

 267:15

goal (4)

 79:15;193:2,7;

 194:12

God (1)

 234:19

goes (21)

 46:12,22;48:2;50:8;

 51:18;57:13;119:2,2;

 133:1;134:12;136:17;

 156:13;162:13;168:22;

 182:2;200:3;204:11;

 274:25;281:1;296:21;

 302:7

Good (50)

 5:6,7;7:7,20;20:3;

 22:3;51:11,11;79:2,5;

 92:23;95:9,11;99:14,

 14;110:4,5;141:19;

 144:1;151:6;159:22;

 172:1;178:6;184:25;

 186:24,25;191:16;

 202:22,23;218:14;

 219:19;235:18;238:14;

 240:22;241:22;243:19;

 248:9,17;251:21;

 252:23;256:22;282:25;

 283:2;288:13;293:19,

 19;295:21;298:6,7;

 302:14

good-faith (4)

 189:3;291:13;

 292:22;294:4

Goren (3)

 6:16,21,23

govern (1)

 273:16

Governor (2)

 154:1;286:6

grade (1)

 277:23

grammar (1)

 219:16

grant (33)

 58:7,15;63:23;64:19;

 65:3;82:17;117:17;

 118:1;155:6,7,12,24;

 171:7;175:12;179:12;

 180:2;199:9,10,23;

 204:8;211:9;218:2,13;

 220:2;222:7;238:4,11;

 239:4;241:4;263:16;

 272:22;294:7,9

granted (9)

 203:7;204:8;205:6;

 218:12;240:3;246:13;

 250:1;272:19;273:1

granting (2)

 203:20;207:5

grants (3)

 153:9;179:1;180:9

granular (1)

 77:17

grapple (1)

 102:5

great (7)

 88:1;113:20;144:11;

 167:19,20;213:23;

 219:3

Greene (1)

 185:8

Gregory (1)

 271:24

gritty (1)

 77:10

Grossman (1)

 127:10

ground (6)

 91:8;94:13;103:11;

 138:23;139:21;204:4

grounds (2)

 203:25;241:14

groundwork (1)

 224:19

group (15)

 78:25;87:3;147:19;

 151:10;155:16;180:24;

 192:14;198:21;199:7,

 17;236:16;239:2;

 241:25;246:14;248:3

groups (4)

 86:19;148:5,25;

 248:3

group's (1)

 255:10

GS (1)

 143:3

guarantees (3)

 263:20,23,23

guess (17)

 22:6;34:1;39:6;

 40:19;56:19;63:19;

 73:24;74:4;191:16;

 200:9;208:22;211:13;

 257:9;265:23;274:9;

 285:10,13

guidance (7)

 26:14;102:10;

 104:20;114:4;222:7;

 251:20;255:7

guide (1)

 160:22

guided (1)

 10:17

gum (3)

 226:15;228:14;

 246:10

Gump (2)

 8:19;79:3

guy (2)

 172:22;228:3

guys (4)

 56:19;121:1;225:19;

 234:9

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(14) forty - guys Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 317

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

guy's (1)

 150:22

H

Habitrail (1)

 115:10

half (4)

 33:3;237:12;290:7,

 19

hall (1)

 82:3

hammer (2)

 117:6,12

hammered (1)

 117:12

hand (9)

 88:8;90:13,14;

 108:20,21;115:13;

 176:16,17;238:23

handful (3)

 72:15;155:1;239:22

handle (6)

 84:17;88:15;95:14;

 123:23;212:18;275:16

handled (2)

 211:23;215:1

handling (1)

 95:18

hands (3)

 191:19;210:22;

 270:20

happen (32)

 10:12;15:9,11;39:16;

 59:7;60:23,24;76:25;

 77:13;79:20;84:19;

 153:2,2,3,14;158:11;

 166:24;167:3;169:21;

 177:21;179:3,11;

 198:7;214:17;216:18;

 241:9;244:1;248:8;

 249:2;259:20;279:5;

 286:7

happened (10)

 48:15,18,25;49:1;

 56:21;130:6;143:8;

 214:3;244:5;297:16

happening (3)

 154:4,4;250:11

happens (33)

 30:18;48:22,24;55:8;

 56:23;57:18;58:8;82:3;

 97:7;113:12;121:11;

 131:9;135:4,5;143:9,

 13;153:12,22;179:1;

 210:21;220:19;221:18;

 229:18;234:19;246:7;

 248:2;255:11;261:1;

 262:9;277:9,19,22;

 279:3

happy (4)

 9:4;122:10;169:12;

 237:4

hard (8)

 24:1;29:7;73:10;

 171:4;201:12;265:15;

 274:4;299:4

harm (4)

 92:1;93:14;131:23;

 282:2

harms (1)

 93:6

hate (2)

 108:25;300:8

Hauer (1)

 79:3

Hayes (1)

 170:19

head (3)

 244:14;264:25;

 285:20

headline (2)

 45:3,3

hear (34)

 9:4;17:9;52:7;63:12,

 14;64:23;94:7;96:5;

 116:20;125:11;131:16,

 21;148:8;163:23;

 164:21,22;165:4;

 166:25;167:4;168:4;

 170:8,15;187:21;

 246:4;260:16;263:10,

 20;281:3;282:1,2;

 283:17,17,20;302:12

heard (85)

 7:4;10:8;15:13,15;

 23:7;24:15,15;26:12;

 36:19,19;52:18;73:3,4;

 78:22;86:18;91:1;97:6;

 102:22;108:25;110:2;

 116:22;137:14;139:14;

 140:16,25;141:1,1;

 151:4;157:24;160:15;

 163:4,12;164:14,18;

 166:4;167:24;170:9,

 15;174:24;175:1;

 179:9,11;180:13;

 181:5;182:5;185:6;

 188:25;189:5;193:13;

 205:3;207:24;216:15;

 221:15,15;223:5;

 225:4,6,9;227:22;

 245:22;250:19;252:22;

 257:1,4;258:15;

 259:13;263:11;267:7;

 270:5;273:9,23;274:2,

 16,23;278:9,11;279:17,

 20;282:15;285:4,25;

 286:24;287:2,4;300:21

hearing (59)

 7:3;10:14;25:17;

 42:4,18,18;64:24;65:5;

 67:14;75:24;79:16;

 86:6;87:12,14;88:15;

 94:8,11,12,14;138:17,

 21;139:7,7,23;148:11;

 151:12;158:1,3;167:2;

 168:15;169:24;175:17;

 180:18;184:17;187:19,

 21;188:22;189:10,13,

 18;190:22;191:5;

 203:24;204:13;206:3,

 8;209:25;230:16;

 236:9,10;263:1;

 265:15;268:6,10;

 270:2,14,24;277:12;

 286:8

hearings (6)

 5:11;42:3;67:4;

 140:18;148:24;221:25

hears (3)

 84:6;164:7;282:4

heavy (1)

 257:24

heirs (1)

 112:19

held (2)

 33:3;114:10

Heller (2)

 39:21;221:4

help (13)

 32:6;47:15;94:10;

 98:16;118:11;156:2;

 173:24;202:20;210:14;

 219:10;223:15;226:5;

 289:25

helped (1)

 89:2

helpful (3)

 110:17;154:12;251:7

helps (2)

 11:5;13:13

here's (18)

 9:15,24;46:19;81:1,

 1;102:20;115:17,23;

 120:5;127:3;148:7,8;

 164:1;175:3;232:6;

 248:21;250:7;265:1

H-huh (1)

 226:8

high (6)

 35:15;49:21;145:22;

 196:14;284:20;290:12

higher (1)

 177:20

highest (1)

 123:8

highlight (1)

 242:5

himself (1)

 140:17

hiring (1)

 89:19

history (4)

 88:23;89:2;125:4,6

hit (3)

 101:16;250:17;

 285:20

hmm (1)

 143:23

hoc (13)

 8:18;25:16;74:1;

 76:2;78:24;79:4;

 147:18,23,24;149:10;

 151:9;241:24;255:10

hold (2)

 169:14;231:11

holders (1)

 8:17

holders' (1)

 151:19

holes (1)

 25:18

hollow (1)

 51:10

home (6)

 5:22;24:7;62:1,25;

 97:25;266:1

homes (1)

 266:19

homework (1)

 147:6

honest (1)

 291:15

Honor (419)

 5:7;6:21;7:20,24;

 8:12;9:5;10:15;11:3,8,

 8,13;12:3,14;13:7;

 14:11;15:3;17:14;18:1,

 8,24;19:14,25;20:3,13;

 21:3,17,19;22:18,19;

 23:9,12,16,22;25:3;

 26:25;27:19;28:16;

 29:24;30:9,21;31:7,22;

 32:2;33:8,13;34:12,13;

 35:4,18;36:4,16;37:16;

 38:17,25;40:7,20,22;

 41:11;42:7,12;43:2,4,

 16;44:6,9,11,16;45:10,

 15;46:9,12;48:25;49:2;

 50:16,21;51:1,5,16,22;

 52:9;53:24;57:3,3,12;

 58:1,2,2,15,18;59:10,

 18;60:3,25;61:21;62:7;

 64:2;65:11,16;66:2,13,

 18,21,25;67:3;68:5;

 70:14,25;71:8;72:4,12,

 12,23;73:3,5,6,17;

 74:20,21,21;75:4,13;

 76:12,17,22;77:3;78:3,

 10,24;79:2,8,10;80:7,

 12;81:7;82:22,24;83:5,

 18;84:1,6;85:1,11,15;

 86:4,16;87:2,7,18,25;

 88:7;90:15,22;92:6;

 95:2,5,11,22;98:22;

 99:3,17,24;100:8;

 101:24;102:2,25;

 103:7;105:14;106:3;

 107:22;108:25;110:3,

 5;111:6,17,19;113:9,

 15;114:25;115:13;

 117:22;118:16;119:10,

 14;125:3,15;129:19;

 136:2;139:25;141:6;

 142:23;144:3;145:10;

 151:6,11,12,20;152:1,

 3,21;154:17,24;155:4,

 13;156:15;157:1,7,20;

 158:14;160:4,25;

 162:6;163:21;164:2,

 21,25;165:13,17,25;

 166:3,4,8,13,17;167:4,

 22;168:25;170:4,18;

 171:7;172:3;174:7;

 175:24;176:15,21;

 177:7;178:1,20,25;

 180:17,20;181:6,10,12,

 18,25;182:12;183:5,

 20;184:4,10,22;185:1,

 7;187:4,7;188:8;190:6;

 194:17,19,21;195:6,18,

 22;196:2;198:8;

 199:14;202:21,23;

 203:5,19;204:5,13,25;

 205:18;207:1,9,12;

 208:12;209:9;210:15;

 212:7,12;213:7;

 214:21;215:14;216:9;

 219:15;220:9;221:5,

 10;222:21;230:19;

 235:13,18;236:6,17;

 237:4,10;238:20;

 239:13,20;241:1,18,22,

 25;242:3,11,24;243:14,

 17,25;244:12,25;

 245:10,16,22;246:7,16;

 247:1,12,21,22,24;

 248:11,22,23;249:2,7,

 17,22,24;250:2,16,23;

 251:11,18,22,24;

 252:18,23;253:3,4,9,

 19,21,24;254:2,2,3,16,

 17,19;255:1,4,9,13,20;

 256:3,10,22;257:16,22;

 258:2,14;259:9;260:4,

 10,14,18,23,23;261:22;

 262:4,20,22;263:6,18;

 264:3,19,22;265:14,19;

 266:7,21,23;267:23;

 268:6;269:7,14;

 270:12,17;271:3,18,24;

 272:5;274:16;279:10;

 281:8;285:8,18;

 288:13,17,20;289:6,12;

 290:22;291:17;294:14;

 295:5;296:8;298:22;

 299:2;300:8,25;301:9,

 9,23;302:2,13

Honorable (1)

 5:5

Honor's (12)

 8:1;23:25;27:8;29:1;

 55:17;58:22;60:5;67:2;

 245:3;246:3;250:10;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(15) guy's - Honor's Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 318

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 262:11

hoodwink (2)

 141:3,12

hook (1)

 103:3

hope (13)

 27:7;65:10;79:9;

 145:7;158:4;169:15;

 180:14;187:16;255:4,

 7;274:3;278:21;300:21

hoped (1)

 255:13

hopefully (3)

 110:16;178:18;282:5

hoping (1)

 181:10

hopper (1)

 168:22

horrible (2)

 130:25;279:4

horribles (1)

 279:5

host (1)

 27:6

Hostetler (1)

 88:5

hour (5)

 86:17,20;256:15;

 271:22;290:19

hour-and-a-half (1)

 256:13

hours (11)

 99:22;146:3;215:17;

 289:20;290:5,5,5,10,

 18;293:23,24

hours' (1)

 204:17

house (3)

 61:24;89:22;98:1

household (1)

 24:12

Housekeeping (1)

 7:23

huge (4)

 34:9;140:16;144:20;

 186:13

human (2)

 298:16,17

humble (2)

 232:17;233:19

humiliated (1)

 130:7

humiliation (3)

 130:3,5,13

hundred (10)

 18:12;25:3;41:8,13;

 48:13;91:20;136:16;

 149:17;282:11;284:22

hundred- (1)

 14:7

hundred-percent (1)

 27:19

hundreds (3)

 45:8;118:5;296:16

hypothetical (9)

 16:17;41:14,22;55:5,

 19;56:5,9;57:14;

 198:16

I

IC (1)

 158:12

idea (4)

 140:15;258:21;

 259:7;289:22

ideal (1)

 26:18

ideas (3)

 157:13,13;170:7

identification (1)

 102:23

identified (2)

 89:15;186:18

identify (3)

 81:13;145:9;264:17

identifying (3)

 90:18;145:17,18

ignition (1)

 267:15

ignore (6)

 173:1;176:20,23;

 225:16;269:20,21

ignored (2)

 10:3;279:15

III (19)

 17:17;55:14;60:22;

 61:2;82:2;124:3;128:5;

 129:12,14;131:1;

 148:7,11,14;150:8;

 217:5;222:11,12;

 280:24;284:8

illegal (1)

 17:19

Illinois (1)

 238:15

imagine (7)

 84:15;165:18;

 206:11;222:12;245:2,

 24;266:4

immediate (1)

 62:16

immediately (2)

 203:22;263:15

immunize (1)

 16:20

impact (10)

 30:14;32:3,12;

 108:15;228:17;242:13;

 295:12,19;296:2;297:1

impaired (3)

 50:1;134:23;148:4

impairing (1)

 277:15

impairment (3)

 130:2,4,20

implicate (2)

 84:15,16

implies (1)

 176:20

imponderables (1)

 82:13

importance (1)

 297:8

important (42)

 9:6;20:17;30:10;

 35:3;44:15;55:22;

 66:17;76:17;88:9;

 102:2;145:6;152:24;

 161:11;172:18;185:11;

 193:6;194:9;196:19;

 202:7;216:3;218:16,

 19;221:9;224:20;

 232:6;244:12;273:9,

 13,20;281:14,20;

 282:18;295:1;296:5,

 13;297:9,13,14,25;

 298:22,23;301:18

importantly (1)

 72:8

impose (1)

 291:18

imposed (4)

 223:12;224:3;

 291:23;292:21

imposes (1)

 237:20

impossible (5)

 67:13;152:13;

 205:16;263:23;267:24

impressed (1)

 237:17

impressive (2)

 130:12;134:4

impropriety (1)

 222:9

improvement (1)

 103:2

inaccurate (1)

 198:16

inappropriate (1)

 222:3

in-between (1)

 280:24

incited (1)

 238:19

inclination (2)

 230:16,17

inclined (2)

 122:10;188:3

include (3)

 127:14;129:6;148:21

included (5)

 23:5;70:20,20;252:8;

 289:20

includes (6)

 37:10;40:16;89:22;

 112:20;188:25;251:2

including (6)

 10:23;127:7;147:8;

 203:22;256:5;277:7

incoherent (1)

 270:11

inconsistency (1)

 258:15

inconsistent (2)

 221:3;248:1

incorrect (1)

 113:14

incumbent (1)

 277:7

indicated (1)

 299:8

individual (30)

 11:23;15:21;24:1,4;

 46:15;54:24,25;55:19,

 23;57:16,17;67:19;

 68:12;73:18;104:10;

 105:17;116:2,2;133:1;

 135:6;136:1;152:10;

 195:24;247:4;256:6;

 262:2;274:17;281:25;

 286:15;289:13

individually (1)

 134:1

individuals (6)

 16:3;70:22;105:6;

 152:14;232:9;261:10

inefficient (1)

 164:21

inevitable (1)

 175:22

infirmities (1)

 158:14

infirmity (1)

 204:2

influence (2)

 65:3;69:13

influenced (2)

 295:10;299:9

influential (2)

 144:14;224:18

inform (1)

 200:22

information (12)

 88:9;108:5,14;

 110:16;184:24;202:6;

 210:5;221:21;228:24;

 249:8;289:24;298:24

informative (2)

 266:17;267:19

infringing (1)

 13:21

inherent (1)

 42:12

inherently (2)

 11:11;18:13

inheriting (1)

 44:8

injured (1)

 13:19

injuries (3)

 62:25;88:23;202:5

injury (31)

 13:17,19,20;19:10;

 36:20;37:3;45:2,17;

 55:9;63:15;80:19;

 97:16;106:7;111:11;

 112:21;125:2,25;

 126:6,11,13,14,16;

 127:7,12;128:6;129:6,

 24;130:1;148:21;

 202:4,9

in-or-out (1)

 37:14

inquiry (4)

 85:14;98:2;117:1;

 218:17

insensitive (1)

 218:8

insisted (1)

 140:9

insisting (1)

 299:17

inspections (1)

 188:18

inspectors (1)

 89:19

instance (1)

 267:16

instances (1)

 106:18

instead (2)

 142:4;257:4

instructions (1)

 141:18

insulting (1)

 178:12

insurance (4)

 148:1,2;216:8;

 252:25

insured (2)

 61:24;247:6

insureds (1)

 253:13

insurers (6)

 23:9,13,24;24:11;

 247:4;270:13

integrity (1)

 293:19

intellectual-property (3)

 13:21;55:6;56:18

intelligent (2)

 105:18;115:24

intend (5)

 105:22;192:23;

 194:4;234:11;249:4

intended (2)

 38:18;216:4

intent (2)

 237:14;257:25

intention (1)

 49:22

intentionally (1)

 16:9

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(16) hoodwink - intentionally Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 319

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

interaction (1)

 220:7

interest (5)

 198:11;204:6;

 206:15;210:16,18

interested (2)

 181:23;220:11

interesting (4)

 33:15;243:24;244:4;

 294:17

interlocutory (1)

 183:17

International (1)

 237:14

interpretation (1)

 138:11

interpreted (1)

 10:5

interrelated (3)

 9:14;26:5;270:7

interrupt (4)

 27:10;112:15;147:2;

 199:8

intertwined (1)

 152:24

into (56)

 15:22;20:4;26:13;

 33:6;36:6;43:23;46:13;

 48:4;49:6,11;50:8,15;

 51:18;54:7,17;60:4;

 63:2,24;70:17;77:10;

 99:18;101:2;102:3;

 108:14,19;111:3;

 122:17;132:14;133:2;

 134:7,12;136:3,17;

 143:2;150:14;162:3;

 166:23;168:22,23;

 179:24;191:23;193:16,

 16;194:8;198:17;

 202:8;204:10,11;

 215:22;231:16;244:12;

 250:13;268:24;274:25;

 287:8;294:23

introduce (1)

 101:7

inverse (46)

 10:2;11:12;13:9;

 28:23;29:6,10,13;30:1,

 18;31:13,16,25;33:25;

 34:2,13;74:25;75:24;

 76:21;90:13;94:21,22;

 96:1,2,7;99:3,7,25;

 101:15;102:24;105:23;

 107:9,23;116:5;

 123:18;124:8;128:4;

 129:1;162:11;165:19;

 166:1;184:12;185:6,

 10;200:1,20;207:17

inverse- (3)

 12:2;81:14;100:21

inverse-condemnation (10)

 11:7,16;17:19;27:11;

 72:22;90:4;128:10;

 142:8;158:21;193:15

investment (1)

 277:23

investor (1)

 99:4

investor-owned (2)

 96:3,9

invite (2)

 138:9;180:14

invited (1)

 220:24

invoked (1)

 129:2

involve (5)

 59:22;60:1;99:12;

 164:8;261:10

involved (17)

 39:19;75:16;83:16;

 90:3,6;94:21;106:12;

 109:1;110:24;116:8;

 148:16;186:1;221:23;

 222:5;230:3;297:13;

 300:2

involves (2)

 106:7,7

involving (2)

 120:7;130:1

Irish (1)

 118:17

Irish-Italian (1)

 118:24

Irishman (1)

 118:13

irony (1)

 213:23

irrelevant (2)

 206:20;248:9

isolation (1)

 163:4

issue (160)

 10:24,25;11:7,13,13;

 12:3,5,5;14:23;15:2;

 21:19;27:16;32:2;

 43:15;45:14;57:5;62:5,

 9;64:7,22;69:16,18,19;

 72:22;73:1,4,7,8,8,11,

 17;74:23;75:1;84:15;

 85:13,16;89:8,9,10;

 91:9,18;96:8,8,9,12;

 103:1;107:2,12;

 119:25;120:9,9,11,15,

 19;121:8;122:24;

 123:2,3,4,4;124:13;

 127:23;129:2,22;

 139:14;145:23;150:6;

 152:16,19,20;154:23;

 163:6,21;165:3;

 166:15;167:1,4,6,15;

 168:13;172:13;173:13;

 174:15;175:4;178:24;

 181:18;182:2,13;

 183:7,10;184:16,23;

 189:10,13,14,14;190:4;

 191:13;192:17,23;

 193:6,15,22;196:14,16,

 16,20;197:4;200:5;

 208:9;210:16;211:2,3;

 212:1;214:13,25;

 215:20;216:16;220:3;

 222:23;223:14;229:13;

 231:3;235:10,19,25;

 236:22;238:22,23,24;

 242:24;243:6,8,9;

 244:6;245:6;249:25;

 250:4,16,18;251:10,12;

 253:17;257:10;260:10,

 10;264:3;266:12;

 275:19,19;276:3;

 280:19;282:3;284:8,

 24;285:24;286:4;

 295:16;300:8;301:2

issued (3)

 23:10;122:23;285:14

issues (97)

 10:19,22;11:4;12:16;

 16:18;27:6,7;34:14;

 40:14;42:20;63:17;

 65:15,21;79:12,15;

 80:16;82:24;84:4;

 89:17,25;90:2,8,11,16,

 18;100:1;102:5,6;

 105:16;119:16;131:7;

 134:3;140:23;145:9,

 19;148:20;150:7;

 156:25;157:5,6,21;

 162:12,25;163:2,11;

 164:8,12,18;165:1,8,9;

 166:9;167:23;168:1;

 169:9;188:2,4;193:7;

 195:23;199:20;202:19;

 208:16,20;211:23;

 218:16,22;224:2;

 228:16;230:21;232:15,

 15,16,17;235:4,7;

 242:15;243:15;245:2,

 3,24;246:1,4,11;250:9,

 13,22;251:18;253:18;

 255:16;257:21;270:8,

 20;271:3,4;275:24;

 286:22;300:21

Italian (2)

 118:13,18

item (1)

 50:4

items (2)

 190:15;194:14

J

jackets (1)

 6:4

Jackson (6)

 203:22;206:4,5;

 213:9,9;215:2

jam (1)

 111:3

January (20)

 26:10,19;68:8;75:10;

 143:5,6;167:1;179:11;

 209:23,23;211:12;

 258:22;263:9,15;

 264:5;271:1;276:12,

 15;286:2,2

JCCP (5)

 203:23;207:13;

 213:7;214:25;221:25

jeopardize (1)

 272:9

Jeopardy (1)

 289:4

job (11)

 49:13;107:12;

 141:25;146:1;148:18,

 20;177:4;216:5;252:1;

 253:22;286:22

Johnny (1)

 115:12

Johnson (2)

 221:23,23

join (1)

 271:15

joinder (2)

 236:20;252:3

joinders (1)

 247:3

joined (4)

 92:17;155:25;

 195:25;199:6

joint (1)

 83:22

jointly (2)

 79:21;83:7

Judge (179)

 5:11;16:12,23;17:17;

 30:18;35:1;37:12,13;

 38:5,14;39:15,17;40:4;

 41:2,3,17,18,21;42:25;

 43:19;44:3;45:1;52:22;

 55:13,14;57:20;58:19;

 59:5,21,23,23;60:3,22;

 61:2;81:4,5,6,12,12,13,

 14,20;82:5,7,9;84:18,

 25;85:10;99:20;

 102:17;104:17,18,19,

 21;106:8;114:21;

 128:5;130:6;131:1;

 138:23;139:6;140:14,

 14;141:17,19,23;

 143:11,23;144:13,18;

 146:12,14,20;147:9;

 148:7,11,14;149:12;

 150:10,13,13;153:11;

 168:16;170:2;171:3;

 179:9,21,22;186:23;

 192:16;196:15;197:9;

 198:13,14;203:22,23;

 206:4,4,5,11,13,19;

 207:13,17,25;209:17;

 211:20;212:17,18;

 213:8,8,9,10,13,17,17;

 214:23,24;215:1,2;

 217:3;218:2,3;220:5,

 18,18,24,24;221:2,2,

 11,13,16,24;222:12;

 223:14,22,24;224:1;

 230:3;231:25;233:9,

 19;234:8;248:6,17,19;

 249:21;250:2,6,8;

 255:6;259:22;260:1,7;

 261:3,5,6,19;262:10;

 267:7;268:18,25;

 274:8;275:22;281:9;

 284:8;289:11,22;

 290:17;291:11,17;

 293:22;294:11,12;

 295:1;298:16;300:1,2

judges (28)

 5:19;33:3;41:15;

 83:15;114:5;119:7;

 137:5;142:7;148:16;

 209:12,14;213:4,7;

 217:5,7;222:11,13,14;

 231:18;234:17,18;

 235:4;275:7;290:16;

 291:19;292:6;293:17,

 22

judge's (4)

 37:15;82:2;200:20;

 290:19

judgment (13)

 12:24;33:7;48:3;

 104:17;121:2;132:13;

 134:12;135:7;183:15;

 240:9;275:6;279:14;

 283:2

judicata (1)

 244:9

judicial (8)

 57:4;58:23;134:5;

 189:25;268:22;281:16;

 284:8;293:13

judicial- (1)

 64:11

judicial-officer (1)

 38:1

Julian (225)

 52:14;86:13,16,24;

 87:2,15,18;88:4,5,12;

 89:10,13,15;90:25;

 91:11,13,15,22;92:8,

 10,13,18,22,24;93:8,

 11,17;94:1,16,18,20,

 24;95:2,4,7;97:17;

 102:9;110:1,3;118:8;

 119:11,14,22;120:11,

 14,17,25;121:5,18,23;

 122:2,5,7,11,13;123:6,

 13,15,20,21,25;124:5,

 12,23;125:1,14,15;

 126:18,24;127:1,3,6,8,

 10,17,19;128:8,14;

 129:15,17,19,21,23;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(17) interaction - Julian Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 320

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 130:13,17,19;131:6,13,

 19;132:2,5;133:3,5,9,

 16,18,20,23,25;134:17,

 19,23;135:1,8,11,13,

 16,18,21;136:2,6,8,18,

 20,23;137:9,21;138:4,

 7,12,14,22;139:1,4,9,

 13,17,22,25;140:8,13,

 21,23;141:3,16;142:1,

 4,23;143:2,11,14,19;

 144:2,5,7,10,13,22,25;

 145:2,6,13,24;146:6,9,

 17,19;147:1;151:2;

 153:16;161:11;168:13;

 169:15;172:14;183:14;

 185:13,21;186:22;

 189:21;194:18,19;

 195:13,18,20,20;

 197:11,13;198:8;

 199:1,3,5,12,14,20;

 200:8,19,24;201:5,11,

 17,24;202:3,5,14,16,

 21;211:25;212:3,7;

 222:18,19;229:22;

 230:11;239:2;274:5,

 18,20;285:13,16,18;

 286:11,13;287:4,10,17;

 288:1,4,8,11,13,17,20,

 23;289:1,3

Julian's (2)

 166:2;189:2

July (6)

 59:12;67:7;286:6,8,

 13;288:1

jump (1)

 264:25

June (19)

 21:12;59:8;67:7,23;

 153:22,23;160:25;

 171:24;172:2;175:7;

 177:10;210:18,19;

 211:3;272:11;276:9,

 12;277:4;280:2

juries (6)

 119:10;139:12;

 209:21;251:20;253:18;

 298:12

jurisdiction (4)

 15:18;88:15;124:19;

 272:15

jurors (5)

 69:12;209:16;219:8;

 281:5,13

jury (122)

 16:10;36:10,11;

 39:24;47:8,8,24;50:7,7,

 14;51:11,24;53:18;

 54:11;55:9;60:21;61:2;

 68:9;69:6,22;102:11;

 112:9;125:17;131:11;

 132:11,12;133:1,14;

 134:11,14;135:6;

 136:14,15,15;141:18,

 18;143:9,18;152:16;

 153:11;154:25;155:1;

 189:10;196:14,15;

 197:6,7;200:10,16;

 201:8;207:15,17,19;

 209:7,10,15;210:7;

 211:15;215:15;225:21;

 228:7;229:2;242:25;

 243:8,10,15;244:22;

 245:8,9;246:6;247:24;

 248:7,9,18;251:13;

 253:14,17;255:11,18,

 22;256:2,7;258:9;

 263:3;264:5;265:8,8;

 266:7,12,16,18;267:13;

 268:3,18;269:19;

 274:6,15,16;275:19;

 279:6;281:2,23;282:1,

 1,2,4,6;283:1;284:20;

 289:24;290:21;295:4,

 20;296:5,11,15,25;

 297:14,19;298:5,19;

 299:22

jury- (1)

 16:4

jury=trial (1)

 134:17

jury's (4)

 19:19;200:20;

 202:10;242:14

jury-trial (11)

 55:3;133:12;134:19,

 23;191:6;198:17;

 250:4,13,18;271:11;

 290:11

justice (8)

 170:11;171:25;

 204:7;206:16;216:24;

 223:12,23,23

justly (1)

 110:21

K

Karnak (1)

 215:12

Karnow (9)

 179:21;213:8,13;

 215:1;264:12,14;

 267:7;289:11,22

Karnow's (2)

 153:11;206:19

Karotkin (8)

 7:18;23:7;35:21;

 36:1;50:22;55:8;

 113:20;116:20

Karotkin's (2)

 55:10;56:11

keep (20)

 67:22,22;120:6;

 165:15;169:11,12;

 180:23;185:10;201:20;

 226:22;231:18;244:10;

 252:11,19;272:3;

 280:21,22;288:19;

 299:5;302:11

keeping (2)

 247:8;280:3

Kell (1)

 117:10

Kelly (103)

 108:15;109:21;

 110:1,4,5,5,6,9,11,14;

 111:17,19;112:13,15,

 17;113:6,12,15,18;

 114:13,18,24;115:2,4,

 7,10,13,16,19,22,23;

 116:18,20;117:2,8,20,

 22,24;118:1,5,10,16,

 19,24;119:1,5,7,9;

 122:17;134:4;138:14;

 139:11;142:15;143:16;

 152:25;153:17;156:24;

 172:10;174:13,19;

 208:16;210:9;211:14;

 212:10,11,12,22,25;

 213:6,12,15,20,22;

 214:10,12;215:7,23;

 216:1;217:9,11,14,16,

 18;218:21,23,25;219:2,

 14,18,24;220:9,14,17,

 22;221:4,22;222:16,

 17;249:13;260:12;

 261:3;286:1;291:22

Kenwood (1)

 89:23

Kevin (2)

 8:8;256:23

key (7)

 10:18;26:3;27:7;

 176:1;253:4,8;281:15

kicks (1)

 63:24

kick-the-can-down-the-road (1)

 43:9

kidding (1)

 121:17

killed (1)

 216:21

Kim (3)

 6:10,14,16

kind (30)

 5:24;19:4;32:25;

 44:19;52:21;69:5;

 82:14;91:5;103:20;

 104:13;107:15;118:9;

 121:14;142:21;156:22;

 161:15;168:4;172:11;

 183:12,17;190:16;

 193:14;216:5;234:16;

 250:1;252:14;276:11;

 278:15;293:18;296:23

kindergarten (1)

 6:2

kindling (1)

 113:9

kinds (1)

 281:4

kit (1)

 271:6

Kline (1)

 237:13

knew (2)

 268:23;286:7

knowing (2)

 206:13;218:15

knowledgeable (1)

 219:7

known (1)

 98:5

knows (10)

 39:20;77:4;110:22;

 114:22;129:10;177:14;

 186:8;191:7;217:4;

 302:4

Koch-Ash (2)

 205:21;237:13

Kornberg (3)

 26:6;225:19;264:5

L

label (2)

 37:1;262:18

Labor (2)

 207:24;261:2

Laborers (1)

 237:13

lack (1)

 299:25

land (1)

 11:10

language (1)

 42:13

large (5)

 70:24;106:11;207:9;

 208:12;210:22

larger (1)

 5:19

largest (1)

 280:7

last (15)

 19:15;23:10;26:6;

 34:16;67:4;79:8;

 122:23;128:9;161:18;

 184:17,17;188:8;

 223:20;255:9;262:13

lasting (1)

 159:9

late (1)

 300:24

late-filed (2)

 161:25;162:2

later (24)

 7:2;10:23;11:4;15:1;

 16:7;19:3,4;28:4;36:2;

 57:18;112:9;139:19;

 146:15;147:4;164:17,

 23;178:8;180:3,11;

 191:8;213:18;221:11;

 229:19;284:21

laugh (1)

 188:12

laughing (1)

 188:14

Laughter (1)

 35:25

law (56)

 10:3,6;18:22;36:21;

 37:19;52:4,8,10;68:17;

 73:8;75:1;84:7;96:2,

 23;97:17,18,19;

 105:24;113:13;122:22,

 22;124:9;127:25;

 135:4,19,21;138:1;

 148:10,13;152:11;

 160:20;166:4,11;

 190:1;198:4,6;200:6;

 221:6,7;224:13;

 230:18,20;232:11;

 237:24,25;238:5,6,12;

 240:18,19;241:8,11;

 243:25;247:18;251:12;

 296:1

laws (4)

 138:11;172:6;

 238:16;296:18

lawyer (23)

 71:24;95:12,14;

 110:9;143:21;182:24;

 202:24,24;212:5;

 217:14;221:10,12;

 224:24;229:12;233:16;

 243:19;269:6;283:3,6;

 295:22,22;296:1;

 298:16

lawyers (35)

 9:15;21:9;31:15;

 32:25;35:8;37:2,3;

 39:18;46:15;51:6;54:9;

 64:21;74:15;75:16;

 88:8;90:10;118:6;

 137:5;149:21;178:12;

 186:8,24,25;187:24;

 193:23;195:23;218:2;

 221:15;257:5;260:16;

 261:18;273:22;280:3;

 293:19;294:11

lawyer's (1)

 159:22

lay (2)

 193:9;224:18

laying (1)

 112:4

lays (1)

 257:2

lead (3)

 42:14;82:24;199:16

leadership (1)

 300:14

leading (2)

 165:7;245:1

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(18) Julian's - leading Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 321

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

learn (1)

 119:7

learned (2)

 36:21;91:2

learning (1)

 73:23

least (21)

 10:18;17:12;35:10;

 67:17;69:19;84:12;

 87:5;128:24;141:20;

 154:23;155:15,18,19;

 193:1;194:4;200:5,17;

 228:25;266:6;290:15;

 299:6

leave (15)

 8:24;10:7;12:18,19;

 59:21;138:6,8;139:25;

 146:5;189:4;190:2;

 211:25;222:15;230:2;

 241:12

leaves (1)

 34:5

leaving (5)

 97:23;134:3;161:25;

 200:4;294:9

LEBLANC (55)

 66:16,18,18,24;

 67:16;68:17,20,22;

 69:4,9,15,17,19,22,25;

 70:2,7,12,14;71:5,8,11,

 14,16,18,20,22;72:2,4,

 23;73:1,12,16;74:10,

 12,19,25;75:3,13,19;

 76:6,10,12;77:8,12,16,

 18,22,25;78:2,5,8,10;

 79:9;149:22

lecturing (1)

 241:13

ledger (1)

 245:19

left (15)

 34:14;40:19;96:12;

 98:8;136:25;162:11;

 189:17;190:4,14;

 192:19;194:15;232:7;

 288:21,24;289:1

legal (37)

 9:14,20;10:13;11:7,

 13,13,24;12:25;13:9;

 16:19,25,25;27:18;

 30:19,20;32:2;40:14;

 79:15;82:23;90:18;

 96:8,8;98:5;119:16;

 121:12;122:25;129:2;

 145:9;165:19,22;

 166:3;173:1;186:19;

 188:25;199:25;242:24;

 243:12

legislation (2)

 125:22;126:4

legislative (3)

 125:4,6;237:14

legislature (3)

 172:5;176:18;278:22

lend (1)

 84:14

length (2)

 208:17;284:12

lent (1)

 125:22

less (14)

 24:8;56:11;109:8;

 114:22;211:21;215:16;

 217:5;235:1;244:19;

 258:24;259:17;265:12;

 275:8;283:9

lesser (2)

 134:13;277:12

level (3)

 28:6;72:15;156:25

liabilities (2)

 42:23;152:22

liability (58)

 14:5;16:1;18:6;20:5;

 30:23;31:9,9;41:22;

 68:10,24;69:20;72:13;

 89:7;90:4;96:6;97:22;

 98:3;102:7,24;105:23;

 108:24;116:12;118:2;

 126:6;141:7,8;196:16;

 201:10;207:16,19,21;

 208:9,19;209:5;210:5;

 215:10,18;217:19;

 218:5,7;226:16,19;

 228:16,20;230:5,22;

 242:10;248:20;253:16;

 260:10;261:16,20,21;

 282:16;283:17;294:25;

 295:17;297:9

liable (7)

 17:25;96:7,24;97:21;

 99:7;152:6;201:8

liberal (1)

 162:1

life (5)

 141:22,24;142:5;

 268:25,25

lift (8)

 76:23;247:22;252:8,

 9;253:14;254:4;257:3;

 281:20

lifted (1)

 211:24

lifting (10)

 151:14,17,21;242:6;

 245:1,21;250:18;

 253:5;254:5;255:3

lifts (3)

 247:21;248:23;250:3

lift-stay (5)

 26:16;68:3;72:6;

 77:6;242:4

light (11)

 65:17;73:6;113:16;

 123:7;214:1;216:13;

 218:5,6;257:15,17;

 271:7

likelihood (3)

 16:1;17:1;18:18

likely (11)

 51:19;111:14,14,15,

 17,17;153:21;186:15;

 193:3;242:14;245:6

limit (3)

 151:11;161:24;

 191:12

limitations (3)

 13:3,8;16:19

limited (3)

 87:20;130:1;283:4

limiting (1)

 191:14

limits (4)

 263:17;291:18,23;

 292:21

line (10)

 54:9;101:14,16;

 103:3;152:3;161:4;

 178:6;225:9;264:25;

 290:24

linear (1)

 279:21

lines (5)

 99:13;102:15;

 164:12;251:1;254:9

linger (1)

 70:17

liquidate (12)

 15:5;46:2,3,5;47:8;

 53:18;54:16,22;56:16;

 152:13;176:7;181:17

liquidated (9)

 55:1;131:15;132:4,

 15,16;133:13;183:16;

 200:18;231:12

liquidation (6)

 55:3;57:18;71:2;

 92:3;93:14;261:11

liquidation's (1)

 92:21

list (4)

 26:22;96:14;119:13;

 145:22

listed (2)

 146:13;181:14

listen (14)

 49:9;72:3;81:17;

 94:5;147:1;168:10;

 179:25;180:15;232:21;

 235:20;238:2,2;272:6;

 281:5

listened (1)

 110:19

listening (3)

 116:14;214:6;281:13

listens (1)

 298:5

litany (1)

 36:24

literally (2)

 68:11,22

litigants (3)

 39:25;68:23;95:8

litigate (1)

 11:10

litigation (7)

 80:17;106:5;142:2,5;

 223:25;267:16;294:24

litigations (1)

 214:23

litigators (2)

 153:13;172:20

little (23)

 20:14;43:8;54:10;

 56:9;68:6;76:20;80:10;

 87:24;95:24;125:10;

 146:16,17;147:4;

 157:7;160:15;208:16;

 221:7;228:3;236:4;

 255:13;264:22;265:12;

 272:8

live (7)

 92:20;111:25;

 177:23;187:5;294:21;

 295:3,19

lives (1)

 22:23

living (3)

 172:2;178:13;294:18

Local (2)

 39:14,18

log (1)

 113:10

logistical (1)

 178:25

logistically (1)

 179:2

logistics (1)

 5:9

long (14)

 75:7;80:17;94:12;

 101:25;175:18;176:6;

 186:1;208:25;209:2,7;

 211:14;214:16;296:17;

 299:4

Longer (8)

 92:9,11,13;146:24;

 178:7;255:13;260:13;

 278:18

look (50)

 18:16;24:6;31:17;

 36:6;38:2;39:2;57:4,

 19,22;63:19;75:18,21;

 79:8;86:5;89:24;108:5;

 125:2,4,19,24;128:18;

 130:7;135:14;137:11;

 143:8;144:10;146:22;

 147:5;158:21;159:18;

 172:9;179:15;183:20;

 187:20;203:6;223:16,

 16,16,24;226:18;

 234:19;242:4;267:15;

 270:17,18;271:21;

 272:16;282:10;288:5;

 301:3

looked (7)

 103:12;109:5;160:5;

 166:19;238:20,21;

 240:16

looking (8)

 21:12;24:19;51:19;

 75:9;126:20;146:23;

 182:16;280:18

looks (2)

 68:8;211:9

Looney (1)

 237:13

Lord (1)

 217:4

lose (10)

 22:24;122:20,21;

 160:1;162:21;232:5;

 240:10,11;244:18;

 277:25

loses (4)

 17:20;162:14;

 243:19;268:21

losing (1)

 243:20

loss (3)

 62:25;120:19;255:19

losses (3)

 216:9;217:1;290:1

lost (15)

 61:23,24;62:1,22;

 68:22;97:25;98:1,1;

 130:7;143:17;174:16;

 213:24;265:19;268:6;

 295:23

lot (47)

 9:12;18:17;19:1,20;

 21:12;31:18;34:14,17;

 35:13,14,14;38:4;

 43:25;66:15;67:1,8;

 71:23;80:15;86:22;

 88:12;102:9;113:8;

 149:13;151:13;160:16;

 165:15;167:3;183:17;

 184:23,24;186:11;

 211:10;214:22;231:13;

 232:16,16,17;234:21;

 242:8;245:22;252:19;

 254:3;258:14;261:9;

 262:4;295:6;301:3

lots (1)

 240:2

loud (3)

 265:12;297:21;298:8

love (2)

 23:5;97:3

low (3)

 143:25;144:1;198:15

lower (2)

 122:22;127:14

luck (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(19) learn - luck Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 322

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 206:2

lump (1)

 89:21

lunch (2)

 174:8;299:6

lunchbreak (1)

 170:12

lunches (1)

 92:14

lung (1)

 88:24

luxury (1)

 70:15

M

machine (1)

 61:8

magic (3)

 100:15;105:13;

 187:15

magical (1)

 274:9

magically (1)

 153:2

magnitude (1)

 175:15

mainly (1)

 67:2

maintenance (2)

 102:15;111:23

major (2)

 229:1,1

majority (1)

 50:13

major-law-firm (1)

 39:19

maker (1)

 129:13

makes (15)

 30:18;37:10;45:15;

 81:6;82:5,24;84:7;

 91:18;139:13;179:22;

 206:5;243:10;259:18;

 266:5;287:17

making (16)

 38:5;52:16;65:17;

 86:1;104:7;110:17;

 141:24;142:4;149:25;

 150:6;156:3;170:1;

 177:3;203:18;218:14;

 287:21

malpractice (1)

 104:11

mammoth (1)

 146:22

manage (8)

 60:10;223:19;

 224:14,15;235:7,10;

 280:17;292:20

managed (1)

 222:25

management (4)

 111:23;164:8;

 232:15;243:2

managers (1)

 89:19

managing (3)

 39:20;141:18;145:20

manda (1)

 71:14

mandate (1)

 223:5

mandated (1)

 238:12

mandatory (9)

 71:1;111:10;205:6,

 15,16;207:24;218:10;

 233:12,20

manner (1)

 300:3

mantra (1)

 67:25

Manual (1)

 223:25

manufacturing (1)

 289:8

Manville (3)

 125:21,25;126:10

many (29)

 7:2;14:20;27:5;56:2;

 61:17;65:24;66:1;91:5;

 116:25;117:4;142:11;

 146:10;160:17;166:24;

 188:18;191:15,19;

 222:23;227:1;244:14;

 245:2,3;252:11;

 253:13;257:21;259:6;

 270:8;301:12;302:7

marathon (1)

 265:25

March (3)

 70:10;269:22;287:6

marker (3)

 202:11;283:13,14

MARSHACK (20)

 170:18,19,19,22,25;

 171:11,14,19,22,24;

 172:13,24;173:2,7,9,

 12,16,18;180:20;181:6

mass (5)

 88:17;224:14,14;

 231:19;267:14

master (3)

 146:12,14,20

match (3)

 287:24;288:7,8

material (2)

 29:5;32:3

math (4)

 24:18;61:15;136:17;

 210:12

mathematical (1)

 61:3

matrices (1)

 46:14

matrix (8)

 47:6,21;59:13;62:17;

 63:2;134:8;143:2;

 283:8

Matter (41)

 5:8;6:11;10:9;25:12;

 34:11;39:16,24;60:6;

 68:17;69:11;74:12;

 83:14;84:17;105:21;

 122:24;124:9;128:25;

 142:17;149:23;155:18;

 157:8;190:17;197:3;

 199:9;200:15;201:15;

 205:22;206:15,16;

 211:24;212:19;238:6;

 240:19;243:14,14;

 247:18;255:11;258:5;

 268:5;275:11;283:14

matters (7)

 7:23;148:11;192:15;

 270:23;272:21,22;

 299:15

matter's (3)

 42:25;288:17,18

maxed (1)

 258:12

maximum (1)

 55:16

may (44)

 9:16;21:9;37:1;

 43:13;59:22;61:24;

 67:3;69:15;72:15,15;

 73:3,22;84:22;85:23,

 25;87:2;88:7;91:15;

 103:13;106:5;117:10;

 120:1;122:7;128:8;

 150:22;172:19,19;

 174:16;182:25;225:25;

 254:17;264:22;266:9,

 12;272:10;287:22;

 288:12;292:6;294:19;

 295:18;296:19,19,21;

 297:18

maybe (57)

 16:10,12;18:4;19:5,

 16;25:1,1;50:11;52:18;

 55:9,13,14;58:8,8,9;

 62:8;82:11;106:4,5;

 125:12;132:18,18;

 134:13;137:14;140:3,

 3;145:19,19;155:10;

 159:17,18;162:19;

 167:8;168:12;169:12;

 172:10;176:20;189:5,

 16;207:24;211:12;

 227:14;231:6;249:12;

 250:10,14;254:10,10;

 261:16;262:10;263:11,

 13;272:19;278:11;

 282:12;283:6;287:14

MCCALLEN (125)

 151:6,7,8,9,16,25;

 152:23;153:6,15,20,25;

 154:3,7,10,13,16;

 155:4,9,11,17,21,23;

 156:5,8,12;157:11,15,

 17,23;158:5,8,10,25;

 159:2,4,6,9,12,20,23;

 160:2,4,20,24;161:9,

 14,17,21;162:5,20,22,

 25;163:2,4,8,14,18,20;

 164:17;165:9,13,17,20,

 24;166:7,22;167:6,9,

 11,13,17,22;168:1,18,

 25;169:2,10,18;170:4,

 6;180:13;191:1;

 241:21,22,23;242:18,

 21,23;243:4,6,21,24;

 244:4,9,16,20,24;

 245:12,16,19;246:3,16,

 18,20;247:1,3,6,9,11,

 15,18;248:11,15,21,25;

 249:7,14,17;250:16,21;

 251:10,15,17;255:14;

 270:5

McCallen's (2)

 189:5;262:8

MDL (1)

 221:24

mean (151)

 14:8;17:12,15;18:3;

 20:20;23:19;28:7;31:5;

 33:16;34:25;36:3;39:6;

 41:1,15,20;46:3;47:13;

 51:10,14;58:3,4,9;

 61:9;63:18,19,21,24;

 64:14,25;65:22;69:5;

 74:6;75:25;78:17;

 79:24,25;80:24;83:11;

 84:25;85:12,13;91:9;

 92:21;93:18;106:4,6;

 111:14,15;114:15;

 116:7;117:16,19;

 119:8;120:24;121:17;

 122:15;123:10,21;

 124:4;126:14;127:20,

 25;129:3,3;137:3;

 142:20;144:21;145:2;

 146:16;147:18;153:6,

 8;155:8;156:6;158:24;

 159:15,16,22;161:12;

 162:13,17,19;167:4,7;

 168:12;169:7,15;

 171:22;172:17;175:10;

 176:2;178:10;179:25;

 181:22,23;184:20;

 185:14,21;187:14;

 195:14;198:24,25;

 201:2;206:1;208:23;

 209:18;210:7,11;

 212:20;225:11,23;

 226:21;230:8,10;

 231:2;234:17;236:23;

 238:22;242:21;243:19,

 21;244:13;245:16;

 248:9;249:6,10;254:9;

 261:5,23,23;272:20;

 274:6,6,7;275:9,14;

 277:11;280:11,12,16;

 281:7;283:21,24;

 285:17;287:3,16;

 292:6;293:17;297:1;

 298:18;301:13

meaning (2)

 126:11;196:17

meaningfully (1)

 67:12

meaningless (1)

 52:21

means (23)

 11:19;46:5;49:25;

 58:22;63:24;70:9;

 97:23;102:24;130:23;

 134:7,10,14;137:16,22,

 23;156:1;176:3;177:9;

 208:6;226:1;274:8;

 278:19;296:2

meant (2)

 52:15;219:22

meanwhile (2)

 168:19;220:3

measure (1)

 200:12

measuring (1)

 152:6

mechanics (1)

 65:6

mechanism (3)

 24:22;60:8;300:16

mechanisms (1)

 47:4

med (1)

 104:10

media (2)

 5:13;193:4

mediation (3)

 47:6;133:13;149:7

mediations (1)

 300:18

mediator (1)

 149:6

meet (11)

 43:10;76:16;175:16;

 187:17;223:11;231:7;

 276:9;277:8;281:22;

 299:12,18

meet-and-confer (1)

 64:24

meeting (2)

 176:6;258:2

mega (1)

 154:8

Melodia (1)

 110:6

members (1)

 193:4

memorandum (1)

 235:16

mention (2)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(20) lump - mention Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 323

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 111:6;189:8

mentioned (6)

 28:11;106:18;

 229:24;243:1;287:1;

 300:12

mere (1)

 130:2

merely (1)

 120:3

merits (4)

 160:13;286:25;

 287:3,5

mesothelioma (1)

 88:24

mess (1)

 276:18

message (11)

 69:13;114:8;169:16;

 175:2;179:18;186:21;

 187:2;194:3;266:22;

 297:21;298:7

met (1)

 277:22

Michael (1)

 110:5

microphone (1)

 87:13

midday (1)

 192:19

middle (2)

 122:13,15

midnight (2)

 223:21;276:15

might (38)

 9:2;13:1,13;21:22;

 28:10,11;32:9;34:8;

 39:9;53:1;69:13;81:1;

 102:14;126:21;144:17;

 149:7,14;153:11;

 161:25;188:3;192:1;

 193:3;198:5;206:19;

 222:7,12;231:4,6;

 243:20;245:14;267:21,

 23;270:21;271:20;

 273:4;278:7;286:15;

 296:25

Milbank (3)

 66:19,19;271:24

million (13)

 14:6;17:2;24:12;

 134:12,14;136:15,16,

 16;137:17,18;148:13;

 188:15;269:19

million-dollar (1)

 14:9

millions (1)

 13:22

mind (16)

 5:25;6:3;9:10;19:24;

 49:20;51:5;57:6;67:22;

 70:25;87:25;121:10;

 129:9;180:23;191:19;

 198:20;199:15

mindset (2)

 96:22;178:17

minimize (1)

 147:19

minimum (3)

 14:17;260:11,11

mini-trials (2)

 33:3;196:15

minor (2)

 10:25;190:15

minority (2)

 60:17,20

minute (11)

 37:25;120:22;

 205:11;223:21;251:25;

 262:13;265:23;268:7;

 271:20;283:19;296:9

minutes (19)

 5:12;8:2,12,13,19,

 24;22:17;86:17;87:21,

 23;195:10,11;256:14,

 17;272:3;285:15,16;

 289:1;301:11

mirror (1)

 217:25

miscarriage (1)

 170:11

mischief (1)

 175:15

misconstrued (1)

 119:22

missed (2)

 19:16;277:20

missing (2)

 106:24;265:24

misstated (1)

 138:10

mistake (2)

 131:23;195:6

mistaken (1)

 128:1

misunderstand (1)

 195:7

misunderstanding (1)

 36:8

mix (2)

 162:15;174:16

mixed (1)

 280:4

mixing (1)

 276:11

model (1)

 228:23

modify (1)

 142:13

moment (12)

 12:19;37:1;44:16,17;

 49:24;77:17;90:19;

 114:5;142:15;198:17;

 215:24;280:23

Monday (3)

 192:8,10;193:3

money (17)

 31:18;55:2,15,16;

 61:18;63:3;67:24;

 70:23;72:9;93:13;

 116:15;132:13,13;

 198:18;281:25;295:9,

 12

monkeyed (1)

 216:23

monster (2)

 88:15;142:20

Montali (2)

 5:5;250:2

Montali's (1)

 141:23

month (6)

 179:11;211:19;

 260:11,12;263:16,17

months (14)

 39:8;142:17;143:4;

 153:3,10;164:17;

 176:17;178:7;223:7;

 225:20;249:6;258:16,

 19;272:25

Moore (2)

 8:8;256:23

more (78)

 5:20;6:5,6;9:1;

 12:11;13:16;14:14;

 20:5;21:6;30:1;33:9;

 36:14;61:20;69:5,13;

 72:8;74:21;78:2;81:19;

 84:24;85:3,5,7,9;

 95:24;99:22;102:1;

 104:12,16;116:23;

 118:6;132:12;133:21;

 137:6;138:12,13;

 140:5;141:2;145:7;

 149:14;153:1,4;155:3;

 166:5;168:14;169:22;

 180:20;186:5;188:21;

 191:13;193:3,6;

 199:18;200:1,17;

 214:8;216:10,11,11;

 220:12;222:16;232:14;

 233:16,25;234:4;

 242:23;245:6;259:14;

 267:18,22;275:18;

 276:4;283:8;296:23;

 298:9,21;299:11;

 301:10

morning (27)

 5:6,7;7:7,20;19:19;

 25:4;32:17;79:2,5;

 95:10,11;96:4;97:7;

 110:4,5;143:15;

 145:18;151:6;189:23;

 216:2;227:23;248:18;

 249:6;270:6;273:21;

 276:15;278:11

Morris (1)

 257:18

most (38)

 9:5;21:11;22:25;

 37:9;45:9,11;64:20;

 85:16;87:19;97:21;

 106:6;108:17;111:5;

 115:24;145:6;152:5,

 18,19,19,20;166:10;

 181:21;196:19;226:17;

 228:15;230:21;231:22,

 22;232:6;241:11;

 270:20;273:9;282:3;

 290:1;295:1;296:4;

 297:8,14

most-efficient (1)

 149:11

motion (77)

 8:15;9:11,12;18:4;

 21:19;22:1;24:15;26:4,

 5,16;27:25;28:2;37:23;

 39:10;63:22;64:2,17,

 19;66:5;67:11;68:3;

 72:6;77:19;78:22;

 111:5;120:23;121:2;

 122:16;127:14;150:10,

 12;155:11,25,25;

 167:20;170:16;171:7;

 175:11;179:7;181:2;

 183:15;185:15;187:9;

 189:9,11,22;191:6;

 195:25;196:3;203:7,

 25;205:3;207:3,23;

 211:2;240:10,11;

 242:4;247:20;250:6;

 252:3,15;253:14;

 254:4;275:3;286:6,24,

 24;287:2,4,22;288:8,9,

 10;299:7,21,22

motions (19)

 6:25;7:4;9:12;25:1;

 39:22;67:14;157:25;

 190:8,17;192:21,24,25,

 25;214:17;267:22;

 272:20;286:20;299:6,7

motivate (3)

 144:17;242:16,19

motivating (1)

 10:18

mountain (1)

 154:14

movants (2)

 272:7;277:5

move (13)

 67:6;83:14;122:7;

 124:1;140:1;153:23;

 161:21;162:5;178:22;

 249:11;258:17;262:11;

 286:21

moved (1)

 150:15

moves (1)

 278:22

moving (7)

 66:9;169:12;186:9;

 195:10,25;223:11;

 252:22

much (45)

 14:14,22;18:8;34:18;

 41:6;51:12,16;61:18;

 65:20;74:24;76:2;

 77:14;78:7;84:6;86:11,

 25;87:16;92:11,13;

 93:5,6,12;115:25;

 139:5,6;140:5;153:1;

 170:6;171:22;188:21;

 195:14;199:25;210:21;

 221:19,22;242:8;

 245:23;252:20;274:2;

 278:18;290:16,17;

 296:23;298:9,12

multiple (6)

 85:13;89:25;156:1;

 228:9;267:18;275:10

multiplied (1)

 295:11

multi-week (2)

 34:9;102:11

must (8)

 28:9;111:11;112:23;

 115:19;179:10;206:6;

 221:4;240:19

muster (1)

 121:14

Mutual (1)

 252:24

myself (4)

 111:8;118:12;140:8;

 250:2

N

nail (1)

 285:20

name (8)

 7:6;66:22;81:13;

 120:9;202:25;203:1,3;

 229:24

names (2)

 118:25;120:7

naming (1)

 149:20

narrative (1)

 216:5

narrow (5)

 38:21;64:9;157:5,18;

 191:12

nation's (1)

 74:15

nature (4)

 88:20;137:2;193:18;

 237:23

near (5)

 22:9;65:5;188:20,20;

 250:24

nearly (1)

 256:13

necessarily (5)

 70:24;80:3;116:7;

 132:16;217:25

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(21) mentioned - necessarily Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 324

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

necessary (9)

 105:19,20;108:22;

 191:5;228:19;232:10;

 262:24;299:21;302:11

need (66)

 7:6;17:16;26:8;27:4;

 42:17;43:9;45:14;

 47:15;67:10,24;72:9;

 87:1;90:20;94:25;

 102:5;107:14;112:25;

 114:4,7,9,10;122:6;

 123:4,6,13,15;130:25;

 131:9;152:25;153:13;

 156:2;157:11;173:20,

 24;174:23;178:7;

 184:18;190:2;191:10;

 201:23;202:25;205:12;

 208:21;211:3;214:25;

 216:8;222:7;223:11;

 225:20,24;232:1,6;

 233:6;245:23;247:10,

 19;250:14;254:9;

 256:12;258:16;261:15;

 267:18;271:3;278:20;

 285:15;295:2

needed (6)

 20:4;49:5;235:9;

 255:15,17;265:2

needs (15)

 38:14;106:19;

 108:12,23;109:17,17,

 21;117:3;168:14;

 194:16;223:15;233:16;

 238:24;254:18;258:19

negligence (42)

 29:13;30:13;31:9,25;

 89:17;90:7,13;100:1,4;

 107:9;108:15;111:6,7,

 10,11;112:4,7,23;

 113:2;116:6;140:25;

 154:23;163:9,21,23;

 164:5,19,20,21;165:3,

 4,5,6,8;175:6;177:9,13;

 193:16;200:5,21;

 207:18;242:25

negligence-related (1)

 165:1

negligent (19)

 30:6;101:17;111:18;

 112:9;113:3;162:15;

 163:11;164:11,24;

 177:14;200:11,11,12,

 16;265:24,24;266:2,13,

 20

negotiate (2)

 141:21;244:15

negotiating (1)

 51:2

Neither (2)

 55:12;119:5

neutral (1)

 223:9

new (4)

 18:22;169:7;171:10;

 239:3

news (6)

 51:11,11,11,12;

 282:25,25

next (40)

 39:8;70:22;81:12;

 96:4;100:25;101:1,6;

 107:10;119:13;124:1,

 25;142:16;143:15;

 150:3;161:19;168:5,

 15,21;169:2,3;179:11;

 180:15;187:18,21;

 188:21;189:13;207:25;

 210:19;211:3;212:9;

 221:19;222:18;227:6;

 249:5,5;276:16,18;

 286:21;294:16;301:1

Nice (2)

 95:10;110:8

nine (3)

 92:14;178:7;258:19

ninety- (1)

 236:13

ninety-five (1)

 198:3

ninety-seven (1)

 236:13

ninety-two (2)

 226:10,13

Ninth (7)

 81:18;119:2;121:20;

 127:10,13;161:2;162:1

nitty (1)

 77:10

Nobody (12)

 28:11,12;38:14;

 67:12;69:2;70:19;

 136:11;147:16;173:20;

 225:15,15;238:22

nobody's (1)

 273:23

no-brainer (1)

 73:13

nod (1)

 261:3

noise (1)

 295:18

nominal (1)

 89:1

non- (1)

 128:4

non-Article (1)

 148:11

nonbankruptcy (1)

 19:2

noncap (1)

 131:4

noncore (4)

 128:15,21;129:15;

 275:23

non-core (2)

 84:16,17

nondischargeability (1)

 235:21

none (1)

 70:16

noneconomic (1)

 290:1

non-economic (3)

 108:2,7,9

nonissue (1)

 191:7

nonresponsive (1)

 6:13

non-serious (1)

 88:25

non-Tubbs (2)

 154:22;163:24

normally (1)

 238:14

Norrbom (1)

 89:23

North (9)

 90:11;95:7;109:4,8;

 160:7;198:21;199:7,

 16;216:10

Northern (4)

 52:22,24;74:14;

 218:18

note (3)

 100:22;126:23;

 298:22

noted (3)

 151:13;249:23;

 257:22

noteholders (1)

 79:7

notes (2)

 11:13;280:4

notice (7)

 73:21,23;74:7,13;

 204:18,25;205:3

noticed (1)

 197:19

notion (6)

 147:8;225:14;238:5;

 254:8;265:20;298:11

notoriety (1)

 297:12

notwithstanding (2)

 189:2;194:3

novel (2)

 50:18,19

November (1)

 208:7

novo (2)

 142:7;146:22

nowhere (1)

 270:22

nuisance (4)

 90:7,13;114:1;

 200:21

number (52)

 7:1;10:5;17:5;24:2,5,

 6;29:1;31:22,22;46:12;

 49:16;51:6;57:6;60:21;

 63:1;65:21;69:10,11;

 73:2;74:2;79:14,23,23;

 81:21;82:12,23;85:20;

 134:6;136:16;143:25;

 144:1;155:19;161:24;

 162:6;163:16;186:9;

 196:21;241:7;248:8;

 258:8;261:15;267:12,

 13,13;283:14;289:23;

 290:10;296:10,15;

 297:7,8;298:20

numbers (4)

 109:6;231:20;

 247:10;252:2

numerator (3)

 61:17;136:19;282:7

Nuns (3)

 89:21;226:12;280:8

nutshell (1)

 276:1

O

oak (1)

 201:13

oath (1)

 176:5

object (1)

 270:13

objection (2)

 184:6;187:22

objections (2)

 6:23;7:5

objectors (1)

 49:7

obligated (1)

 206:24

obligation (3)

 205:22;260:18;

 263:25

observation (2)

 146:9;151:16

observations (2)

 103:11,12

obtain (1)

 197:15

obvious (4)

 30:15,16;77:23;

 167:7

obviously (30)

 9:22;10:5;11:5;

 12:25;17:8;18:13;

 20:17;23:19;39:9;

 49:22;65:2;76:13;82:6;

 86:5,21;87:16;152:13;

 160:16,22;175:25;

 185:17;186:2;200:7;

 229:14;231:5;243:15;

 251:11;254:19;262:11;

 276:23

OCC (3)

 36:22;66:14;127:21

occasion (1)

 169:8

occur (2)

 182:1;278:15

October (13)

 74:3;75:6,23,23;

 77:13,14;124:23;

 158:16;159:6;164:4;

 166:25;169:17;208:6

off (12)

 6:4;28:21;39:8;

 44:19;88:8;117:8;

 141:21,21;143:18;

 168:3;210:6;228:22

offend (1)

 178:10

offended (1)

 253:25

offer (5)

 23:13;46:17;146:6,9;

 147:2

offered (4)

 5:20;24:3;76:13;

 109:2

offering (1)

 222:9

Office (1)

 181:13

officer (7)

 57:5;58:23;64:13;

 189:25;268:22;284:8;

 294:4

official (9)

 66:19;73:25;76:2;

 88:6;148:23;149:1,6,

 18;195:20

often (3)

 27:22;35:7;234:23

oftentimes (1)

 252:11

old (6)

 66:22;115:9,11;

 233:14;236:12,13

once (9)

 32:20;47:9;123:5;

 124:14;128:11;220:11;

 228:17;243:10;299:13

one (232)

 5:20;8:3;10:2,18;

 13:3,16,16,17;16:17,

 17;17:20,21;18:4,12,

 18,21,21;20:5,13;

 21:10,22;25:12;26:6;

 27:11,16;29:1;30:19;

 31:22;33:3,16;36:13,

 17;41:14,18;42:25;

 44:16;45:4,8;47:24;

 48:16;50:6,6,19;53:18,

 25;54:12;55:12;57:6,

 14;58:14;59:20,22,25;

 64:16,18;68:9;71:11;

 73:18,25;74:1,8;75:15,

 16;77:23;78:6;79:23;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(22) necessary - one Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 325

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 82:13;85:14;89:8,9,10,

 11;90:5,13;91:1;92:5;

 93:20,20,22;98:20,22;

 100:21;101:9,13;

 102:5,14,15;103:7;

 104:10;106:18,24;

 107:7,10;108:19;

 109:19;112:12;116:20;

 118:6,13,13,13;121:1;

 124:21;125:10;126:12;

 131:13;133:13,20;

 134:10;135:25;136:13,

 13;138:24;139:13,18;

 146:9;147:14;149:12,

 12,16,22;150:1;151:16,

 22,25;152:4,19;153:10,

 13,22;155:3;156:1;

 157:12,22;159:21;

 160:6,19;162:7,19;

 163:21;165:16;166:10,

 22;167:7,18,20;

 172:15;173:14;176:16;

 180:20;183:18;186:8,

 23;189:8;190:20;

 191:2,8,12,15;193:17,

 22;196:21,25;197:1;

 199:18,18,23;203:25;

 204:16;207:5;210:7,

 15;217:20;219:3;

 220:4;221:1,15;

 222:12,12;223:24;

 228:8,15,16,20;229:2;

 231:3,15;234:1,18;

 236:9,11,23;237:6,8,

 17,22;240:3,6,7;

 242:16,24;243:24;

 248:3,3;251:24;253:4;

 256:25;257:5;258:5,8;

 261:15;265:4;267:12;

 268:11;270:20;271:10;

 272:13;273:23;275:2;

 279:6,7;280:4,25;

 285:19,24;291:19;

 292:20;294:5,21;

 295:17,20;300:8

one-hundred-percent (1)

 13:2

ones (9)

 44:15;167:10;

 197:17;201:4;211:3;

 216:21;224:24;280:8;

 296:25

one's (2)

 199:10;274:16

one-third (1)

 108:10

only (55)

 27:14;31:13;34:19;

 53:6;55:6;56:5;62:21;

 70:15;73:20;79:14;

 92:16;99:21;107:22;

 109:3,5;116:20;

 146:19;151:24;155:1;

 164:15,20,23;165:1;

 168:6;184:13;194:10;

 207:1;213:6;216:17;

 220:23;223:24;228:23;

 230:9,14;231:3,3;

 232:2,7,13;235:3;

 237:8;238:13,14;

 251:10;256:4;258:24;

 261:13;265:10;275:2;

 283:4;287:18;290:18;

 296:15;298:19;302:5

oOo- (1)

 5:2

open (6)

 12:1;25:9;34:5;

 43:15;189:7;194:7

opened (1)

 191:20

opening (9)

 8:13;22:19;63:22;

 99:19;110:14;112:2;

 195:11;252:22;273:21

operate (1)

 230:22

operation (1)

 111:23

opinion (6)

 27:14;155:3;219:6;

 232:18;233:19;297:5

opinions (1)

 17:22

opponent (5)

 186:19;203:16;

 207:10;282:20;292:13

opponents (1)

 205:4

opportunity (10)

 51:17;73:19;110:7;

 176:5;188:17;214:4;

 232:10;241:18;295:4,8

oppose (2)

 77:19;214:4

opposed (5)

 74:23;168:1;189:11;

 216:25;221:18

opposing (2)

 65:24;214:12

opposition (5)

 9:10;78:15;170:16;

 179:13;211:11

opt (1)

 134:11

optimism (2)

 83:12;189:2

optimistic (1)

 250:12

option (6)

 82:6;86:7;117:16,17;

 175:10,10

opts (1)

 134:7

oranges (1)

 276:12

order (39)

 5:3;7:10,13;8:1;

 49:9;65:14;153:8;

 158:6,7;168:6;173:23,

 25;179:9,21;183:17;

 187:11,14,16;193:23;

 203:19;204:18,21;

 205:2,4;206:12;

 207:14;254:4,19;

 255:1;258:17;264:16;

 277:2;285:14;286:9,

 13;299:18;300:24;

 301:11;302:6

ordered (1)

 160:14

organizations (1)

 193:19

organize (1)

 87:3

origin (3)

 164:10;250:24;251:1

original (2)

 69:7;236:20

originally (1)

 213:8

originated (1)

 297:18

Orsini (467)

 7:18,20,23;8:1,6,8,8,

 12,17,22,24;9:4;10:15,

 21;11:1,3,21;12:2,5,13,

 16,22;13:5,7,11;14:1,

 11,13,17,20,23,25;

 15:2,7,9,15,20;16:14;

 17:4,7,14;18:1,8,11,15,

 20,24;19:9,12,14,22,

 25;20:3,8,10,12,17,19,

 22,24;21:1,3,5,17,25;

 22:13,18;23:16,18,20,

 22;25:3,6,8,10,14,16,

 20,22,25;26:3,10,12,

 21,23,25;27:2,12,19,

 22,24;28:2,8,14,16,18,

 20,23;29:1,4,12,18,22,

 24;30:2,7,9,21,25;31:3,

 7,10,13,19,21;32:6,8,

 11,13,15,19;33:8,13,

 18,20,24;34:4,10,12,

 20;35:2,4,17,20;36:2,4,

 6,16;37:6,16,18,22;

 38:9,11,13,16,23;39:5,

 12;40:7,9,10,20;41:5,8,

 11,13,19;42:1,6,9,11,

 23,24;43:2,4,6,15,21;

 44:4,6,9,11,15,19,22;

 45:19,21,24;46:1,5,9,

 19,21,23,25;47:2,18,

 23;48:1,6,8,10,12,15,

 18,21,24;49:2,4,16,18;

 50:2,5,10,16,18,21,25;

 51:4,9,13,15,22;52:1,3,

 6,9,12,20,25;53:3,8,11,

 13,15,17,21,23;54:1,4,

 7,14,18,20,24;55:17,

 19,22,25;56:2,4,6,8,15,

 17,21,25;57:3,9,12,16;

 58:11,14,18,25;59:2,6,

 10,13,17,20,22,25;

 60:2,19,24;61:5,7,10,

 12,16,20;62:1,4,7,9,14,

 20,23;63:4,7,9,12,14;

 64:1,6,11,13;65:9,11,

 15,18,20;66:2,4,7,9,11,

 13;67:1;68:5;72:21;

 76:8;78:18;81:14;

 88:14;91:2,18;93:18;

 95:23,25;96:14;97:1,

 10;98:18,21,24;99:1,3,

 6,9,11,17,24;100:4,7,

 10,13,17,19;101:1,4,6,

 9,11,13,19,22;102:14;

 103:20;107:11;108:25;

 109:2;113:20;116:3,

 13;118:25;121:11;

 131:7;132:7,9,17;

 134:20;137:14,25;

 138:9;139:14;140:17;

 141:10;145:22;151:4;

 157:3;169:20;170:10;

 186:8,17;187:5,7;

 188:7,14,17;190:6;

 194:7,14,16,17;214:14,

 18;225:3,16;230:12;

 256:15,21,22,23;257:8,

 10;258:14;259:1,4;

 260:1,9;261:6,14,17,

 22,24;262:4,7,16,20,

 22;263:1,3,6,13,18,20;

 264:3,14,21;265:14,17,

 21;266:5,7,10,14,21,

 23;267:1,2,4,6,9,23;

 268:10,13,15,17,23;

 269:4,6,9,14,17,21,24;

 270:1,4;271:21;272:5;

 279:4;284:12;285:9,

 25;289:8;291:9,10;

 293:8;294:5;296:12;

 300:7,8,11,16,24;

 301:6,8,13,15,22,25;

 302:2,9,13

Orsini's (6)

 14:5;17:18;41:22;

 66:15;131:9;159:20

others (7)

 13:13;17:9;78:12;

 89:23;173:25;228:17;

 238:25

otherwise (4)

 126:7,12;131:15;

 298:10

ought (5)

 72:22;125:19;132:3;

 254:23;270:9

ourselves (3)

 90:1;248:12;265:7

out (77)

 19:19;22:8,11,14;

 43:11;50:4;55:11;

 59:13;65:13;72:9;74:3;

 75:15;77:1,6,20;79:11;

 87:25;95:23;96:22;

 98:10;109:18;112:4;

 113:12;114:8;117:6,

 12,12;118:11;128:7,

 22;131:17,22;136:3;

 145:16,23;147:16;

 151:13;152:8;154:8;

 164:3;169:16;172:23;

 177:5,8;189:15;193:2,

 9;198:3;202:20;

 207:25;209:8;213:18;

 216:7,19;221:11;

 223:8,19;225:19;

 228:19;231:19;232:7;

 238:23;255:24;257:2;

 261:11;262:13;264:9;

 270:6,9,19;281:19;

 290:3,6,17;295:23;

 297:8;298:20

outbuilding (1)

 61:23

outcome (12)

 11:9;86:6;149:25;

 150:17;152:13;277:13;

 279:8,11;286:17;

 295:3,20;296:18

outcomes (1)

 51:19

outer (1)

 161:24

outline (1)

 203:8

outlines (1)

 148:4

outranks (1)

 222:4

outset (2)

 151:17;178:10

outside (12)

 15:17;48:4;137:15;

 152:7,8;158:11;

 166:19;172:23;178:13;

 208:3;210:2;226:5

over (46)

 7:2;14:4;15:20;19:8;

 24:11;26:5;29:11,12;

 32:23;35:13;39:22;

 43:25;47:10;51:7,7;

 67:4;80:17;87:24;

 94:12;136:19;142:16;

 146:1;147:21;162:11;

 171:1;179:4;191:25;

 195:23;199:16;204:1;

 213:3;217:4;220:25;

 221:14;222:24;223:4;

 225:11;226:25;227:9;

 236:21;244:14;254:23;

 272:9;275:11;281:12;

 292:19

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(23) one-hundred-percent - over Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 326

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

overall (5)

 42:20;108:10,12;

 228:22;229:2

overcame (1)

 118:19

overflow (2)

 5:11,16

overlap (4)

 9:13;88:1;151:13;

 164:23

overlapping (2)

 127:22;270:8

overlaps (1)

 158:22

override (1)

 257:25

overriding (1)

 173:13

overstatement (1)

 219:25

overturn (1)

 119:19

overturning (1)

 161:2

overwhelming (1)

 89:6

overwhelmingly (1)

 198:1

owe (2)

 145:14;182:9

owed (2)

 70:23;200:16

own (7)

 20:13;27:13;43:8;

 96:13;137:12;153:17;

 264:25

owned (1)

 129:3

P

Pacific (2)

 7:9;208:15

page (7)

 35:17;66:11;121:6;

 126:3;128:9;129:25;

 263:5

pages (8)

 27:5;45:8;122:6;

 188:15;191:12,13,25;

 223:21

paid (11)

 47:3,11;60:7;92:25;

 93:13;136:3;148:1;

 196:12;198:10,19,19

pain (1)

 127:9

Panel (2)

 81:8;269:2

paper (2)

 154:14;193:5

papers (29)

 19:17,20;28:10;35:7;

 36:12;41:1;42:2;65:25;

 66:1;71:9;74:20;76:13;

 79:13;82:17;84:21;

 122:20;126:21;133:7;

 147:7,16;154:17;

 165:12;183:8;186:5;

 213:22;214:12;249:23;

 263:10;272:6

Parada (1)

 302:4

parallel (8)

 115:7;177:19;

 220:20;226:17;230:23;

 246:9;279:17;280:6

paramount (1)

 280:19

paraphrasing (1)

 92:1

Pardon (4)

 120:13;127:17;

 133:18;247:7

parenthetically (1)

 249:22

pari (1)

 55:11

Parris (1)

 84:19

part (54)

 10:10;11:23;12:25;

 13:1;19:24,25;34:8;

 37:3,12,20,22,23;39:4,

 11;40:11;42:8,10,11,

 15,20;43:7;44:4;61:13;

 69:1;76:21;84:5;88:12;

 90:9;102:6;116:25;

 129:6;162:16;164:18;

 181:21;182:1;183:10;

 184:13;189:6;207:9,

 21;208:13;210:22;

 213:25;246:7;251:4,5,

 6;255:2;273:13;

 281:11,11;287:21,23;

 300:2

parte (4)

 189:9;204:17,18;

 249:20

participate (9)

 131:10;132:10;

 136:14;180:23,24;

 181:5;211:4;247:23;

 301:12

participated (1)

 137:19

participating (1)

 134:8

particular (21)

 15:2;16:3;41:24;

 44:22;54:21;57:23,25;

 100:24;101:14,17;

 123:2;161:3;163:16;

 192:13;200:13;247:25,

 25;250:23;268:20;

 273:17;275:1

particularly (11)

 6:3;9:19;18:16;74:5;

 106:7;147:20;188:2;

 257:21;275:18;286:17;

 299:9

parties (49)

 7:3;10:5;11:5;24:21;

 41:3;76:16,24,25;77:6,

 20;79:10,19,20;83:12;

 86:5;87:19;89:2;123:6;

 141:20;142:12;148:19;

 149:2;154:14;155:25;

 156:21;157:4,19;

 160:14;166:19;168:7;

 180:8;184:24;193:22;

 195:10,25;196:1,5;

 223:23;236:14;247:6;

 248:25;253:12,13;

 255:22;256:5;264:16;

 275:10,17;289:25

partly (3)

 140:9;155:4,5

partner (1)

 39:20

parts (2)

 43:24;122:17

party (9)

 16:20;39:10,10;

 78:21;121:19;186:9;

 233:8;237:9;294:17

Pascuzzi (22)

 181:8,10,11,12,18,

 25;182:8,12,18,22;

 183:2,5,7,20,25;184:4,

 7,10,13,16,22;185:3

pass (8)

 50:9,12;75:14;

 121:14;133:17,19,20;

 225:20

passed (1)

 67:9

passes (3)

 124:12,16;128:12

passing (1)

 210:6

passu (1)

 55:11

past (3)

 9:2;70:17;128:24

patent (1)

 234:18

patents (1)

 234:20

path (2)

 79:14,22

patient (1)

 235:15

pattern (1)

 110:25

Paul (1)

 181:11

pay (2)

 93:2;131:16

payers (2)

 177:1;223:9

payment (4)

 89:1;127:3,4;176:11

payout (1)

 62:17

peep (2)

 131:17,22

peers (2)

 274:7;283:1

pending (4)

 80:25,25;82:10;

 215:7

penny (4)

 132:15,16;184:1,2

people (91)

 5:25;7:1;16:11;19:2;

 29:6;43:22;44:1;47:2,

 3,22;50:12;63:11;

 64:24;65:22;66:1;

 67:24;69:7,11;72:15;

 73:17,20,22;81:16;

 83:16,19;87:4,11;

 92:14;103:11,13,15;

 104:13;105:19;109:11;

 110:19;111:1,9;

 112:19;130:9;148:1,

 13;155:7,12,14;

 160:17;169:13;180:13;

 192:17;201:9,12;

 204:16;205:5;214:7;

 216:13,21;217:1;

 218:19;219:4,7;

 221:21;226:15,16;

 231:20;232:5;233:6;

 242:16,19;244:14;

 245:7,23;252:13;

 253:10;256:12;257:13;

 264:1;266:19;287:8;

 291:18,24;294:21,22;

 295:2,7,8;296:11,13,

 14,16;301:4,5;302:7

people's (4)

 22:23;32:4;116:8;

 216:16

per (7)

 33:3;41:14;62:3,3;

 146:3;290:5,19

percent (15)

 14:8;18:7,12;25:3;

 41:9,13;48:13;108:6,7;

 149:17;198:3;214:2;

 216:9;226:10,13

percentage (3)

 91:5;135:8;282:12

percentage-likely (1)

 11:9

percentages (1)

 18:6

Perfect (2)

 272:4;275:9

perhaps (13)

 9:10,25;18:3;106:24;

 185:23;192:20;193:10;

 205:3;217:5,11;

 270:18;275:8;298:10

perilous (1)

 278:24

period (5)

 76:15;146:24;

 148:25;229:18;258:13

permissible (1)

 83:22

permit (2)

 91:24;197:7

permits (4)

 18:14,15;148:10;

 213:9

Perris (9)

 57:20;58:19;104:17;

 141:19;143:11;144:13;

 196:15;197:9;198:13

Perris' (1)

 59:5

person (19)

 13:16,19;32:21,22;

 50:6,7,7;91:7;107:25;

 118:13;135:6;136:14;

 137:18,19;175:20;

 176:19;204:1;233:24;

 266:1

personal (26)

 13:15;19:9;36:20;

 45:2;55:9;62:25;63:15;

 87:5;97:16;103:5;

 106:7;111:11;125:2;

 126:6,11,13,14,16;

 127:7,11;128:5;129:6,

 24;148:21;202:9;

 222:13

personal- (4)

 37:2;45:16;80:18;

 125:24

personal-injury (21)

 14:21;16:4,11;19:6;

 35:8;37:8;38:19;40:15;

 54:8;58:21;64:8;83:1;

 95:15;125:7,17,19;

 126:2,9;127:15;

 128:15;130:21

personalize (2)

 138:16;141:14

personally (2)

 95:19;110:13

persons (2)

 13:15;239:17

person's (1)

 233:22

perspective (6)

 10:16;75:5;160:25;

 162:6;166:10;242:5

persuade (1)

 74:8

persuaded (5)

 58:7;65:3;161:12;

 222:7;252:13

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(24) overall - persuaded Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 327

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

persuades (1)

 33:11

persuasive (6)

 127:11;130:24;

 238:6;240:4,7;245:15

pertain (1)

 299:11

petition (1)

 121:25

Petri (1)

 111:8

PG&E (71)

 5:8,11;17:25;30:6;

 68:10,24;69:12,12;

 74:6,6,8;92:20;93:1;

 96:5;97:6;102:23;

 103:22;104:22,22;

 105:22;107:8;108:19;

 110:25;112:25;122:25;

 131:14;137:17;143:10;

 144:19;162:13,19;

 163:9;164:8,20;165:4;

 173:19;175:7;176:5,

 16;177:12;178:6;

 191:18;200:10,16;

 201:8;203:9;210:16;

 211:20;213:24;216:5,

 20;228:18;230:5;

 231:5;244:2,6;250:24;

 251:1,2;260:17;

 287:18;289:10,13,17;

 290:3;291:1;292:22;

 294:23;297:12,21;

 298:8

PG&E's (11)

 120:19;164:5;

 176:24;216:4,14;

 243:1;263:13;286:8;

 289:18;290:8;297:14

ph (5)

 21:10;80:9;130:9;

 147:12;297:18

phase (44)

 9:20,22;12:17,19;

 15:10,25,25;17:11,12;

 19:17,24;20:4;22:9;

 29:11,12;31:5;32:17;

 34:14;43:8;76:22;

 119:18;123:23;156:22;

 162:9,10,16,18,23;

 163:12;164:3,15,18,22;

 186:10;189:6,7;

 190:25;191:2;201:7;

 227:3,6;228:19,22;

 270:6

phased (1)

 28:3

phases (7)

 9:20;17:10;79:24;

 80:2;122:18;158:10;

 191:1

Phasing (2)

 228:10,12

phone (5)

 7:4;188:9;214:23;

 220:4,11

photographs (1)

 103:15

phrase (2)

 34:15;296:14

phrases (1)

 158:16

physical (6)

 103:12;126:7,11;

 130:1;237:9;266:3

PI (4)

 32:25;43:24;110:9;

 217:14

pick (9)

 46:12;108:8;134:6;

 215:15;218:1;220:4;

 229:23;248:8;280:16

picked (4)

 196:19;209:20,21;

 264:22

picking (2)

 167:23;220:11

picks (1)

 214:23

piece (10)

 15:22;24:9;40:15;

 45:1;71:6;93:7;112:23;

 189:6;228:23;268:19

pieces (2)

 103:13;223:11

pile (1)

 34:22

pinpoint (1)

 103:14

pipeline (1)

 287:22

pitch (2)

 174:6;180:5

pitman (1)

 143:24

Pitre (174)

 92:5;94:25;95:4,10,

 11,14,18,21;96:13;

 97:3,6,10,12,14;98:11,

 13,15;101:22,24;102:2,

 17,20,22;103:22,24;

 104:1,3,21,25;105:1,2,

 4,8,10,14;106:3,9,15,

 17,21,23;107:6,16,20,

 22;108:4;109:20,21,

 25;110:12;118:12;

 122:17;134:3;138:14;

 139:11;143:16;152:25;

 156:24;171:1;172:10,

 14;174:14,20;212:3,4,

 9,10,13;222:19,20,21;

 223:3;224:6,8,10,22;

 225:1,6,8,13,22,23,25;

 226:2,4,9,22;227:6,8,

 11,13,17,19,22;228:1,

 4,10,12,14;229:4,9,11,

 17,20;230:6,9,14,19,

 25;231:25;232:22,24;

 233:3,6,9,11,15,19,22;

 234:1,4,7,13,25;235:3,

 6,13;246:9;249:13;

 261:2;265:1,2;269:18;

 286:1;288:20,23,25;

 289:5,6,16;290:13,15,

 22,25;291:3,6,8,21;

 292:4,8,10,12,15,17,

 19;293:2,5,11,13,15,

 21;294:2,8,14,16;

 297:3,5,7,11,25;298:3,

 13,22;299:2

Pitre's (3)

 95:6,9;265:6

Pittman's (2)

 130:9,11

place (13)

 14:3;59:4;103:14;

 111:2;143:5;144:7;

 177:10;179:10,20;

 188:10;190:23;241:9;

 250:24

placed (1)

 192:14

plaintiff (13)

 68:12;96:19,24;

 97:20,22;126:5;

 233:13,17;266:3;

 269:20;289:21;295:22;

 300:14

plaintiff/client (1)

 103:19

plaintiff/defendant (1)

 99:19

plaintiffs (28)

 61:23;67:19;96:21;

 154:25;195:24;196:11;

 200:13;244:10,18;

 246:24;247:13,21,25;

 248:4;249:24,25;

 256:6;260:7;261:9;

 263:21;264:10,17;

 266:25;283:11;289:8,

 13,16;296:21

plaintiffs' (5)

 125:8,16,18,23;

 126:8

plaintiff's (5)

 74:15;107:13;

 125:24;143:21;233:16

plan (43)

 25:12,16,17,20;26:8,

 15;31:17;43:8;49:23;

 59:9;105:22;109:18;

 132:25;133:3,9;

 135:22;138:4;148:4;

 158:15;160:9;188:10;

 196:18;197:16,16,24;

 198:2,9,10;213:24;

 226:5;251:19;255:25;

 272:10,12,15;277:3,13;

 278:12;279:8;281:11;

 289:11,18;290:16

planning (2)

 180:8;190:19

plans (11)

 25:13,13;89:5;

 126:11;133:5;167:21;

 180:9;197:22,23;

 262:2;289:12

plan's (2)

 59:8,14

plate (2)

 141:21;245:3

play (4)

 54:7;63:24;76:3;

 135:20

played (1)

 216:18

player (1)

 149:8

players (2)

 168:24;247:8

playing (3)

 67:8;111:2;123:22

pleading (1)

 263:8

pleadings (1)

 263:7

Please (9)

 5:6;13:1;36:16;

 174:6;190:14;202:25;

 235:16;249:11;256:19

pleasure (6)

 6:15;9:3;87:15;

 95:12;171:3;288:15

plenty (2)

 23:11;288:24

plug (1)

 262:14

plural (1)

 155:2

plus (2)

 280:16;286:19

pm (5)

 190:11,11;256:18,

 18;302:16

podium (4)

 169:4;176:19;

 199:16;211:25

point (136)

 11:3;12:19;13:7;

 15:24;21:11;22:6;

 25:11;28:15,17;31:22,

 22;40:21;46:13;47:5;

 48:9,11;51:22,23;

 57:13;58:18;61:16;

 62:18;63:19;70:2,14;

 72:4,7,21;82:8,22;83:5,

 19,20;84:1;86:3;92:25;

 101:1,17;103:14;

 111:14,21;113:18,22;

 118:9;120:3,12;121:8;

 122:17;123:15;124:1,

 25;125:15,18;126:12,

 13;129:9;130:21;

 138:15;144:21,21,22;

 146:19;147:20;152:5,

 18;153:22;154:9,12;

 156:7;159:19;163:20;

 164:10;166:11,24;

 167:1;171:18;172:17;

 176:22;180:21;184:4;

 187:9;188:7;189:18;

 192:1;196:21;198:3;

 200:18;202:8;216:24,

 25;217:18,23;221:9;

 229:13;234:23,23;

 235:3;238:14;239:3,

 11,13;240:2,13,14,25;

 241:16;242:9;243:12;

 244:12,20;247:12;

 248:5;249:1;250:10;

 251:22;252:20;253:4;

 267:12,13,13;269:24,

 25;270:12,17;275:2;

 278:25;279:1,15,16;

 281:17;287:18;289:6;

 292:17;294:16;298:24;

 299:12

pointed (3)

 151:13;154:8;281:19

points (13)

 9:6;156:25;166:3;

 168:16;170:25;174:14;

 177:4;193:18;194:6;

 241:7;253:4;267:19;

 271:14

pole (3)

 103:3;297:16,16

policies (1)

 89:18

politically (1)

 113:14

pool (7)

 50:15;54:19;55:2;

 266:7,12,16;298:20

poor (1)

 216:6

portion (8)

 34:3;73:2;83:3,4;

 142:9;151:12;252:22;

 259:25

Portland (6)

 41:16;45:12,14;

 48:21;56:21;57:20

poses (1)

 226:17

posit (1)

 152:17

position (16)

 10:3;18:8;26:15;

 111:3;132:18;136:5;

 138:10;149:8;157:12;

 162:14;186:22;208:18;

 270:5,10;283:24;

 285:12

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(25) persuades - position Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 328

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

positions (3)

 30:15;242:20;259:10

possession (2)

 192:3;250:25

possibility (3)

 21:22;60:3;167:20

possible (9)

 67:11;68:1;108:18;

 118:3;146:4;162:2;

 206:17;237:7;250:7

possibly (2)

 10:19;15:4

Post- (1)

 60:24

post-confirmation (4)

 46:13;55:3;62:14;

 271:11

post-emergence (1)

 46:1

posture (1)

 32:4

pot (9)

 48:4,8;50:8;56:13,

 15;255:24;283:23;

 285:2;296:23

potential (3)

 157:6;200:4;245:1

potentially (12)

 10:23;37:24;38:1;

 47:6;60:12;62:11;

 79:14;80:16;83:6;84:6;

 157:3;164:24

power (5)

 33:20,21;40:21;

 103:3;164:12

practical (1)

 243:14

practice (6)

 106:2;191:16;

 214:15,19;269:2,11

practices (1)

 95:15

practicing (1)

 296:1

pre- (1)

 39:15

pre-524 (1)

 46:24

preaching (1)

 161:7

pre-Amendment (1)

 93:23

preceded (1)

 126:4

precedent (2)

 128:1;213:3

precise (2)

 111:15;141:2

precisely (2)

 22:20;202:14

preclusion (3)

 69:14,18,19

preclusive (1)

 72:16

predicate (2)

 72:1;231:8

predict (2)

 244:1;278:15

predicted (1)

 134:15

predicting (3)

 10:10;159:17;284:12

prediction (3)

 159:21;278:17;293:8

preempts (1)

 237:25

prefer (2)

 257:8,10

preference (26)

 69:2;179:7,20;199:5;

 203:25;204:7,8;205:6;

 214:13;215:4;217:24;

 218:2;247:13;249:25;

 250:6;252:5;259:3;

 261:9;263:24;264:1,

 13,15,18,25;265:5;

 286:15

preferences (1)

 238:12

pre-fire (2)

 24:7,12

prejudiced (3)

 271:8;287:11,15

preliminaries (2)

 40:3,13

preliminary (2)

 19:15;171:3

premature (1)

 105:15

preparation (1)

 284:16

prepare (4)

 105:12;114:14;

 233:17;258:19

prepared (5)

 50:23;65:1;107:18;

 190:3;246:11

preparing (2)

 93:17;169:6

preponderance (1)

 33:10

presence (1)

 206:19

present (5)

 47:11;196:24;

 232:10;300:22;301:11

presentation (3)

 203:15;251:6;257:1

presented (4)

 98:4;164:4,5;168:2

presents (2)

 230:21;285:21

present-value (1)

 49:5

preservation (2)

 189:11;191:6

preserve (1)

 299:22

preserved (2)

 55:9;271:11

preserves (2)

 54:11,11

preserving (1)

 53:18

preside (2)

 32:23;94:12

presided (1)

 39:22

President (1)

 150:8

presiding (3)

 5:5;99:20;146:1

Presto (1)

 113:9

presumably (5)

 40:18;56:11;82:7;

 201:6;294:3

presume (7)

 40:25;82:10;173:3;

 182:6;185:22;194:2;

 272:24

pretend (7)

 114:5;150:20;

 161:15;172:18;234:11;

 248:7;261:25

pretending (2)

 75:22;174:1

pre-trial (15)

 37:20,22;39:22;65:8;

 169:22,23;181:3;

 187:24,25;232:16;

 233:2;234:15,16;

 235:7;268:20

pretty (8)

 41:6;93:24;102:2;

 166:12;183:3;186:12;

 249:1;287:23

prevail (1)

 70:5

prevailing (1)

 17:1

prevent (1)

 49:13

preview (2)

 64:14;168:14

previewed (1)

 250:21

previous (1)

 26:5

previously (1)

 160:14

prima (1)

 112:6

primarily (2)

 196:3;297:12

primary (1)

 188:22

principal (3)

 187:16;194:15;

 299:18

principle (3)

 11:24;69:14;123:1

principles (1)

 10:18

prior (8)

 50:23;147:11;

 175:17;191:8,24;

 193:8;268:24,25

priority (6)

 198:13;231:15;

 233:1,8;238:18;252:14

private (1)

 99:14

privately (2)

 129:3;148:25

privileged (1)

 214:22

pro (2)

 55:11;132:14

probability (1)

 114:16

probably (21)

 14:7;19:2;44:1;

 64:21,23;74:14;84:23;

 113:11;141:4;152:4;

 160:19;215:17;217:7;

 219:24;222:13,14;

 245:3;255:17;272:22;

 274:3;301:10

problem (17)

 22:18;24:14;75:21,

 22;86:24;102:20;

 118:12;162:4,6;173:5;

 175:15;204:15;218:24;

 260:14,14;267:25;

 286:23

problematic (1)

 164:24

problems (2)

 86:1;149:13

procedural (1)

 168:8

procedure (9)

 24:21;82:1;105:25;

 174:19;197:20;203:10;

 204:1;262:1;279:23

procedures (11)

 80:7;98:19;145:8;

 174:18;196:13,25;

 204:9;215:9;217:19;

 223:25;264:9

proceed (8)

 41:4;109:16;187:12,

 15;203:8,9;246:9,11

proceeding (18)

 68:4;83:22;90:1;

 107:2;108:16,23;

 112:10;124:13,14,18,

 23;128:11;129:15;

 142:11,12;157:21;

 188:1;268:9

proceedings (14)

 76:24;79:21;83:2,3,

 5,10;84:5,7;152:21;

 160:11;249:3;259:11;

 297:22;302:16

process (123)

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

 12:12;16:8;20:14;26:8;

 31:24;35:9;40:24;41:8;

 42:11,16,21;49:4,10;

 51:21;67:5,6,10,18,21,

 24;68:1,25;69:2;70:8,

 10,24;72:17;73:20;

 74:13;75:25;76:19,25;

 77:2,4,5;79:17;82:19;

 84:23;85:21,21;91:8;

 102:4,7;105:20;

 106:25;107:3;108:11;

 109:15;112:11;116:11;

 117:14,19;137:3;

 139:25;140:7;153:6;

 158:11;161:16,19;

 168:7;172:4,6;175:19,

 20;177:2,4,12,18;

 178:18;180:6;181:20;

 182:2;184:25;186:1,6;

 189:24;190:24;193:12;

 194:5;196:6;223:4,7;

 229:12;230:2,15;

 232:2,4,8,9;234:24;

 236:9;246:8;253:7,10,

 11;254:21;255:2,3;

 256:2,4,6;257:14,24;

 260:8,10,21;272:8;

 273:10,11,12,12,14,16;

 274:6;279:8;280:17,

 21;281:21;283:10;

 295:2

product (1)

 89:7

program (2)

 228:19;247:10

progress (2)

 184:20;222:1

prohibition (1)

 148:12

project (1)

 166:23

promise (1)

 240:9

promised (1)

 196:4

promptly (3)

 79:18;232:6,7

proof (11)

 100:25;101:1,4,6;

 111:20,21;112:5;

 117:4;172:11;174:21;

 284:15

proofs (2)

 90:12;124:19

proper (4)

 74:7;146:4;197:3,14

properly (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(26) positions - properly Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 329

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 79:18

property (13)

 13:15;15:21;19:12;

 24:13;103:5,5;107:25,

 25;108:1;109:4;143:3;

 290:1;297:18

proponent (2)

 185:17;197:25

proposal (19)

 19:25;34:22;63:22;

 73:2;87:24;122:16;

 150:6;156:9,17,19,24;

 162:7,17,23;164:14;

 223:8;229:23;268:3;

 299:25

proposals (1)

 72:14

propose (4)

 86:7;158:15;159:6;

 175:25

proposed (17)

 7:10;9:20;24:21;

 34:15;67:18;73:4;75:6;

 76:14;84:24;122:13;

 147:10;148:16;149:25;

 191:2;289:16,17;293:5

proposition (2)

 52:12;298:12

prosecuting (2)

 103:19;125:20

prospective (1)

 186:19

prospects (1)

 278:19

Prosser (1)

 97:16

protect (1)

 104:19

protected (1)

 104:21

protection (1)

 91:5

protections (1)

 296:6

protocols (2)

 296:7;300:17

prove (19)

 31:16;94:9,10;97:20;

 98:2;100:6,7,10,11,14;

 105:8;107:18;108:22;

 111:4;163:9,10;172:7,

 10,11

proved (6)

 108:23;111:7,8;

 112:24;117:3;232:12

proven (4)

 30:23,24;111:11,13

proves (3)

 72:7;137:16;286:17

provide (3)

 8:20;23:1;160:21

provided (3)

 89:5;106:19;237:12

provides (2)

 36:8;49:18

providing (2)

 109:12;187:22

proving (1)

 111:22

provision (1)

 218:11

prudent (5)

 89:17,18,19;156:14;

 251:21

prudential (2)

 160:24;166:9

prudently (1)

 196:12

psychiatric (3)

 130:2,4,19

public (10)

 23:19,20,22;24:2;

 87:21;99:14;103:2;

 150:21;216:19;217:2

pull (1)

 262:13

punitives (1)

 34:7

pure (9)

 10:13;27:18;61:3,15;

 73:8;74:25;81:2;

 188:25;242:4

purpose (10)

 66:4;72:17;90:15,17;

 91:16;94:4;110:15;

 150:6;152:7;236:11

purposes (23)

 14:4;17:17;31:8;

 42:19;44:24;45:5,21;

 54:3,4,15;57:7;58:20;

 59:9;91:22;94:11;

 131:1,3;132:25;160:8;

 190:21;196:6,9;229:7

pursue (1)

 47:8

purview (1)

 226:6

push (1)

 67:25

pushed (2)

 245:4;261:11

pushing (1)

 175:21

put (50)

 7:2;19:6,9;24:5,5;

 27:6,16;31:25;34:21;

 49:21;54:17;58:22;

 63:2;73:7;79:12;96:19;

 97:25;99:16,22;

 105:20;107:13;108:19;

 109:3;112:5;115:14;

 123:4;128:23;132:13;

 138:18,19;140:8;

 141:10;142:4;147:15;

 152:1;156:17,23;

 165:8,9;173:2;174:23;

 177:16;188:10;191:23;

 196:10;227:3;254:5;

 255:5;268:3;289:11

puts (1)

 161:24

putting (5)

 97:24;98:25;100:20;

 113:21;138:17

Q

qualification (1)

 214:17

qualified (1)

 35:8

qualify (1)

 101:14

quarrel (1)

 185:25

quarterback (1)

 223:15

questionnaires (2)

 139:4;189:15

queue (1)

 25:15

quick (3)

 84:14;253:3;300:8

quickest (1)

 22:25

quickie (1)

 216:25

quickly (17)

 10:19;47:3;67:10;

 68:1;110:20;119:17;

 166:14;181:11;206:16;

 208:20,20;209:11;

 210:17,21;230:15;

 268:2;286:21

quiet (2)

 22:16;37:17

quite (5)

 14:3;107:14;130:12;

 165:18;257:4

quotations (1)

 237:12

quote (4)

 126:6,15;130:1;

 265:4

R

Radovsky (1)

 185:8

raise (8)

 156:24;183:7;

 236:21;237:3,3;

 252:20;300:9,11

raised (9)

 16:18;122:24;

 132:20,20;134:4;

 179:19;184:16;236:23;

 247:12

raises (2)

 37:24,25

raising (1)

 278:20

ramifications (1)

 83:16

range (2)

 91:4;209:18

rapid (1)

 214:8

rare (1)

 146:23

rata (2)

 55:11;132:14

rate (2)

 177:1;223:9

rather (12)

 5:14;10:23;11:4;

 78:12;119:17;137:7;

 177:10;178:5;180:2,

 11;284:12;300:1

rational (1)

 116:9

reach (5)

 45:14;64:6;167:15;

 175:22;177:20

reached (3)

 300:13;301:17;

 302:12

reaches (2)

 76:23;286:17

reaching (1)

 167:17

read (40)

 19:3,18;21:6;23:9,

 12;27:14;28:9;33:2;

 35:7,14,21;45:11;

 63:18;66:1;71:12,21;

 82:17;94:3;102:13;

 120:16;121:7;126:22;

 130:4,11;134:18;

 141:4;165:14,15;

 169:7;171:20,22;

 185:5;186:23;191:25;

 193:5;196:8;230:11;

 235:16;237:11;240:16

reading (7)

 9:10;93:19;128:18;

 147:7;153:9;169:6;

 230:17

readjust (1)

 295:24

reads (2)

 127:1;137:10

ready (18)

 10:8;36:14;39:16,25,

 25;40:1;59:8,15;86:12,

 15;120:25;173:8;

 175:5;187:17;188:9;

 199:21;262:13;285:13

real (9)

 56:23;68:3;92:21,23;

 103:5;107:25;143:3;

 144:1;260:14

realistic (2)

 177:8;290:11

realistically (3)

 179:10;214:21;

 215:15

reality (4)

 220:19;259:8;

 260:24;262:7

realize (1)

 194:9

really (38)

 10:17;57:5;67:16;

 69:5;71:6;72:18;79:14;

 94:21;100:25;106:23;

 111:1;113:21;140:5;

 149:7;150:18;153:1,2;

 167:13;173:12,19;

 178:3;179:18;189:13,

 20;193:18;199:24;

 214:22;216:3;232:14;

 247:11,12;249:23,24;

 258:4;273:13;285:20,

 23;290:11

reason (29)

 22:21,24;24:20;30:9;

 31:25;43:8;68:2;93:9,

 9;104:16;116:13;

 127:13;137:6;149:15;

 166:5;172:1;175:14;

 196:5;197:2,13;

 217:24;220:6;245:22;

 255:12;259:5;266:21,

 23;267:10;282:16

reasonable (2)

 111:22;212:16

reasoning (1)

 193:2

reasons (15)

 28:16;58:14;81:21;

 137:12;141:17;148:15;

 156:19;158:23;198:20;

 238:4;258:4;260:23;

 275:16;285:22;286:25

rebuild (1)

 109:5

rebut (1)

 102:16

rebuttal (4)

 63:16;78:13,14,18

recall (4)

 18:25;93:21;150:11;

 236:19

recapitalization (1)

 89:5

received (1)

 187:2

recent (1)

 205:20

recently (1)

 221:24

Recess (3)

 87:9;190:11;256:18

recite (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(27) property - recite Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 330

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 187:16

recognizes (1)

 204:5

recognizing (1)

 76:25

recollection (2)

 97:20;287:21

recommend (1)

 141:16

recommendation (10)

 39:3,7;40:4,12;44:3;

 84:18;150:1,12,25;

 170:1

recommending (1)

 170:3

reconcile (1)

 233:1

record (14)

 6:24;7:11;8:7;71:25;

 88:5;100:23;118:22;

 179:20;241:5,23,23;

 256:23;258:23;286:11

recording (1)

 5:22

recourse (2)

 45:24;49:18

recover (2)

 55:16;111:10

recoverable (1)

 113:25

recovered (1)

 24:11

recovery (4)

 24:11;79:18;134:24;

 298:10

redefining (1)

 216:5

redistribution (1)

 47:13

Redwood (1)

 226:13

reexamine (1)

 242:19

refer (1)

 147:14

referee (1)

 141:17

reference (10)

 39:4,11;40:13;53:16,

 17;81:20;150:10,12;

 151:1;215:3

referencing (1)

 191:24

referral (1)

 84:25

referring (1)

 221:23

reflect (2)

 148:5;193:13

reflects (2)

 36:7;71:25

reforestation (1)

 108:1

regard (3)

 197:17;287:5;289:10

regarding (4)

 184:18;191:6;

 297:22;299:25

regardless (7)

 23:25;24:25;30:17;

 137:18;140:4;157:25;

 270:24

regular (1)

 190:20

reimbursements (1)

 183:21

reinvent (1)

 191:17

rejected (1)

 57:20

related (9)

 21:7;40:17;120:11,

 14;128:6;163:23;

 164:21;165:4;275:23

relates (6)

 13:9;26:16;64:11;

 67:17;72:13;263:24

relative (1)

 231:15

relatively (2)

 208:20,20

relevance (1)

 51:20

relevant (7)

 26:4;30:14;194:2;

 218:17,18;257:3;

 291:25

relief (81)

 9:12;25:1;58:7,15;

 64:18,19;65:3;69:6;

 82:17;88:1;116:24;

 117:11,17;118:1;

 140:5;146:15,17;

 150:5;153:9;155:7,24;

 170:13;173:4;177:19;

 179:2,19;180:2,9;

 190:7;191:3;192:22,

 25;194:13,21;195:25;

 196:13,25;197:2;

 199:4,9,10,24;203:7,

 20;206:12;207:2,6;

 211:9,9,24;218:13;

 220:2;222:7;237:23;

 238:4,7,11;239:4,7,14,

 18;240:3,5,19;241:4;

 246:13,24;249:20;

 251:6;263:16;267:22;

 272:20,23;273:1;

 285:22;287:4;288:9;

 294:7,9;299:7,10

relief-from-stay (1)

 18:3

relieve (1)

 216:18

reluctant (1)

 175:22

rely (2)

 45:9;293:18

remains (2)

 271:11;275:4

remarkable (1)

 118:19

remarks (3)

 22:19;151:11;273:22

remedy (1)

 271:12

remember (10)

 92:13;93:5;113:17;

 115:11;126:21;191:17;

 222:10;252:16;288:5,6

remind (3)

 92:7;262:17;286:5

remove (3)

 101:19;164:11;

 217:24

render (3)

 76:18;152:16;295:21

rendering (1)

 248:8

renegade (2)

 198:4,5

reorganization (5)

 85:21;125:25;

 177:23;255:25;272:10

reorganized (2)

 60:12;92:20

repealed (1)

 29:10

repeat (6)

 78:12;146:1;166:2;

 242:1,8;272:5

repeated (3)

 158:2;187:21,22

repeatedly (2)

 120:19;210:16

rephrase (3)

 29:25;124:7;179:25

reply (3)

 78:16;125:3;197:18

report (12)

 12:10;17:22;29:15,

 20;149:1,2;216:22;

 250:19,24,24;253:16;

 297:15

Reporter (1)

 126:3

represent (4)

 74:1;170:19,22;

 188:5

representation (1)

 74:19

representative (7)

 152:15;197:24;

 264:18;265:3;266:24;

 267:11,12

represented (3)

 8:18,19;75:16

representing (3)

 90:12;147:25;193:23

represents (1)

 149:21

reputation (2)

 95:20;110:13

request (8)

 119:18;125:8,17;

 177:19;236:20;286:8,

 24;302:9

requested (3)

 8:19;126:9;178:6

requests (1)

 86:19

require (8)

 11:14;16:21;20:14;

 25:22;135:4,21;

 150:25;206:16

required (9)

 15:7;80:3;197:3;

 223:18;241:4;266:24;

 267:11;289:9;290:4

requirements (1)

 254:5

requires (4)

 116:1;129:12;

 135:19;175:13

requiring (1)

 254:4

re-read (1)

 93:21

res (1)

 244:9

reserve (1)

 285:14

reserved (1)

 271:16

resident (1)

 218:18

resolution (9)

 32:8;68:2;167:8;

 169:13;245:1,5;

 281:21;301:17;302:12

resolve (16)

 20:12;23:4,14;24:1,

 23;34:13;68:20;72:9;

 119:16;196:17;223:13;

 257:20;276:6,7;

 295:13;299:20

resolved (5)

 19:3;23:6;26:13;

 68:11;72:14

resolving (2)

 85:17;144:14

resources (7)

 223:15,16;224:12;

 232:14;235:6,9,11

respect (48)

 6:23;12:2,13,16;

 15:16,20,24;16:1,3;

 29:13;45:16;51:24;

 68:10;69:19;70:8;72:5,

 6;75:3;76:24;82:25;

 88:14;89:17;99:25;

 125:17;128:9,10,14;

 156:9,13;163:24;

 164:5,15,19;176:25;

 216:16;242:10,25;

 247:21,22;250:18,23;

 253:15,20;268:19;

 270:12;274:17;282:15;

 286:23

Respectfully (5)

 57:21;98:21;166:17;

 176:15;258:2

respects (1)

 67:17

respond (7)

 67:2;125:8;151:17;

 203:16;225:25;281:5;

 293:8

responded (2)

 7:1;274:21

responding (1)

 125:16

responds (1)

 298:5

response (6)

 6:12;131:9;147:3;

 149:15;150:2;181:14

responses (1)

 125:2

responsibilities (1)

 194:10

responsibility (4)

 39:14;88:16,18;

 287:20

responsible (1)

 193:23

rest (7)

 128:14;266:1,19;

 271:23;273:14;296:16;

 297:22

restate (1)

 132:7

restating (1)

 71:21

restoring (1)

 201:13

restriction (1)

 292:20

result (10)

 15:9,10;56:7;135:4;

 210:4;225:11;253:9;

 258:6;295:3,21

resulted (1)

 89:1

result's (1)

 56:8

resume (1)

 170:12

resumed (1)

 299:6

retain (1)

 213:9

retainer (1)

 232:25

retains (1)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(28) recognizes - retains Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 331

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 198:11

Revenue (1)

 238:15

reversed (2)

 30:1;119:8

review (9)

 119:25;120:3;

 121:25;142:7;146:21,

 23;148:17;237:11;

 299:13

reviewed (1)

 197:17

reward (1)

 284:21

rewrite (1)

 172:5

Rice (1)

 237:13

Richard (1)

 170:18

ride (5)

 21:23;93:15;131:14;

 132:19;134:14

right (287)

 5:9;7:12;9:1;11:1,

 20;12:10,11,15;13:21;

 14:10,19;15:14,22;

 16:5,14;17:4,14,15,25;

 18:7,19;19:4,8;21:24;

 22:13;25:15,24;26:23;

 27:19;28:1,8,20;29:17;

 31:6,23;33:12,13,18,

 19;35:3,4;38:11,23;

 40:24;41:19;45:23,25;

 46:18;47:7,7;48:24;

 50:5,16;51:9,22,24;

 52:22;53:7,8,13,18;

 54:4,11,18;55:3,4,9,18,

 21;56:4,4,6;57:15,20;

 58:13,17,19;60:2;

 61:19;62:2,8,23;63:7,

 10;64:3;67:6;71:15,15,

 18;72:2;73:1;74:10;

 75:2;77:12;78:1,20;

 79:1;80:12;81:14,25;

 83:12,20;84:11,14;

 86:12;87:15;89:12;

 91:21;92:23;94:14;

 98:20;99:15,24;100:9,

 19;103:21;105:21;

 106:14;107:16;108:20;

 114:24;115:18;117:7,

 21;119:9,21;120:17,

 17;122:5;125:23;

 126:8;128:23;131:11;

 132:5,8;133:8,15;

 134:23,25;135:3;

 136:9;138:1,25;139:9;

 140:25;141:7;145:1,3,

 22;148:14;151:15;

 152:10,12;156:23;

 157:10,17;158:12;

 159:8,10;160:23;

 162:13;163:13,15;

 164:16;166:6;167:14;

 170:1,5;171:4,5,6;

 174:4,17;175:3;

 179:23;181:17;182:1,

 8,12,18;183:2,24,24;

 185:22;189:20;192:6,

 6;193:10;195:11;

 197:12;199:22;200:14,

 23;202:18;208:5;

 209:15;210:20,20;

 212:5;213:6,20;

 215:23;216:1,13,16;

 217:3,16;219:3,9;

 224:16;227:5,21;

 232:24;233:15;236:24;

 238:8;239:5,17;240:4,

 15;242:17;243:3,5,19,

 23;244:16,23;246:15,

 19,21;247:15;249:19;

 250:14,20;252:6,16,17,

 21;253:14;254:15;

 257:12;259:1;260:8,

 19;261:2,5;262:3,6;

 263:8,9;264:1,17;

 265:18,20,21;268:16;

 269:8,13;271:11;

 272:15,18;273:5;

 276:17,24;277:1,16;

 279:13;280:6,10,12,14,

 19;281:8;282:1;

 284:10,14,19,22,25;

 287:9,22;293:15;

 296:17;297:1;298:18;

 299:3;301:6

rightly (1)

 151:13

rights (10)

 36:11;105:6;109:15;

 148:3;152:15;191:6;

 253:12;257:23;287:15;

 299:22

rigid (1)

 87:16

Rios (1)

 181:12

ripe (2)

 190:3,4

rise (3)

 5:4;190:12;285:20

rises (1)

 241:15

risk (13)

 32:13;49:12,14;

 70:18;161:1,5;196:5,

 11;278:24;284:23;

 285:6;294:18;295:19

risks (1)

 83:6

road (2)

 47:4,5

roadmap (4)

 140:15;145:3,4;

 226:3

Robbins (1)

 80:8

robe (2)

 32:21,22

Robert (2)

 88:5;195:20

Robertson (3)

 221:2,11,13

Robins (3)

 138:21;139:13;

 147:13

role (8)

 61:13;67:3;98:10;

 147:19;212:2;222:10;

 230:2;284:9

roll (3)

 117:5;193:16;262:8

rolled (1)

 228:19

rookie (1)

 221:2

room (4)

 21:9;44:1;143:21;

 257:16

roughly (1)

 24:7

rule (26)

 10:9;12:24,24;24:25;

 59:5;64:15,17;74:7;

 77:19;79:10;81:15;

 96:14;123:2;140:4;

 148:13;162:1;166:15;

 178:19;198:13,13;

 207:17,17;269:1,2,10,

 12

ruled (1)

 100:21

rules (24)

 34:14;39:14,24;51:3;

 91:8;94:13;96:1,10;

 103:8;105:5;107:1;

 112:1,12,18;138:23;

 139:7,21;146:2;

 150:25;172:17;178:16;

 238:15;240:6;291:24

ruling (20)

 10:9;11:12;23:25;

 34:2;37:23;74:4;81:17;

 98:4;192:21,24;193:6,

 9,11;206:5,5,19;

 250:10;252:8;268:20;

 298:6

rulings (3)

 77:3;222:1;299:10

run (5)

 26:7;87:24;161:5;

 280:6;284:23

runner (1)

 265:25

running (5)

 53:21,23;255:18;

 263:15;289:4

runs (1)

 55:3

S

sacrifices (1)

 105:5

safeguard (1)

 219:8

sake (2)

 273:11;281:24

salient (1)

 174:14

same (55)

 9:14;13:8;17:18;

 31:5;35:17;56:7;66:11;

 82:16;89:11;102:11,

 12;104:18;110:12;

 111:25;114:7,15,23;

 116:25;118:23;119:9;

 120:9;122:19;128:3;

 138:17;141:5;158:2;

 165:19;172:9;174:20;

 178:9;186:23,25;

 191:4,25;192:1;

 202:13;207:15;212:18;

 221:15,16,21,22;

 226:15,22;231:15;

 244:19;246:10,24;

 263:5;266:17;273:16;

 284:9;295:25;298:2;

 299:21

sample (1)

 152:15

SAN (12)

 5:1;36:12;87:21;

 120:7;185:8;203:21,

 23;206:11;212:17;

 221:24;227:1;257:18

sat (2)

 110:19;221:24

satisfy (2)

 164:9;276:9

save (1)

 78:13

saw (3)

 103:12;151:22;

 294:25

saying (53)

 34:1;35:5;40:16;

 53:25;65:20;82:21;

 93:1;109:4,11,12;

 111:1;112:3;114:3;

 116:20;128:24;134:2;

 139:7;144:20;154:20;

 173:7,9,9,12;176:16,

 23,24;177:7;178:3;

 186:11;188:20;201:22;

 209:20;223:2,10;

 224:8;233:4;239:1,1;

 243:17;245:17;250:3,

 6;258:19;259:12;

 263:13;281:1;285:5;

 288:2;291:1,8;292:11;

 295:1;296:12

scale (1)

 255:6

scenario (7)

 14:15;58:3,5;72:6;

 153:4;265:7;270:25

schedule (12)

 75:14;76:5;82:14;

 140:18;145:21;159:18;

 185:24;189:19;220:15;

 256:12;270:21;290:19

scheduled (1)

 272:17

scheduler (1)

 22:10

scheduling (15)

 22:9;65:14;76:15;

 180:10;181:4;182:4;

 186:17;187:10,18;

 188:22;189:18,19;

 190:15;299:14;300:12

scheme (1)

 232:5

Schoenberger (1)

 110:6

school (5)

 36:21;97:17,18,19;

 113:13

scope (2)

 88:14;157:19

scorched (2)

 211:11;214:4

season (2)

 70:17,18

seat (1)

 181:9

seated (4)

 5:6,15;190:14;

 256:19

seatmate (1)

 80:4

second (14)

 8:3;10:16;11:3;97:7;

 125:1,10;151:25;

 197:2,22;199:18;

 207:22;213:22;243:20;

 244:25

second-guess (2)

 168:9;221:19

Secondly (1)

 148:15

secret (2)

 150:19;253:22

Section (14)

 6:25;37:5;54:10;

 112:1;126:14;127:14;

 190:1;204:1,4;237:7,8,

 15;266:25;267:7

seek (1)

 271:12

seeking (4)

 31:21;160:12;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(29) Revenue - seeking Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 332

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 184:24;249:20

seem (7)

 18:4;33:5;44:2;

 144:18;174:2;179:16;

 184:3

seemed (3)

 22:3;189:14;289:8

seems (15)

 10:6;11:18;12:9;

 16:22;24:25;25:12;

 76:1;116:9;117:2;

 118:10;161:23;183:12;

 284:20;290:12;294:20

segue (1)

 44:19

segues (1)

 36:6

select (4)

 209:4,7,10,15

selection (2)

 209:13,15

seminal (2)

 18:21;93:20

send (14)

 93:1;156:21;157:17;

 213:18;215:2;231:4;

 232:23;257:13,25;

 267:16;270:9;295:11;

 297:21;300:5

sending (1)

 271:9

senior (1)

 79:6

sense (7)

 131:23;161:4,5;

 196:8;222:23;248:15;

 259:18

sent (3)

 40:1;50:25;146:24

separate (9)

 33:22;42:18;62:3;

 102:25;103:6;107:4;

 140:5;235:16;270:9

separately (3)

 193:14,15;299:25

September (1)

 208:6

sequence (1)

 100:18

Sequoia (1)

 280:8

serial (1)

 244:6

seriatim (1)

 228:11

series (2)

 13:15;257:5

serious (2)

 88:25;282:3

seriously (3)

 121:17;169:25;272:9

session (4)

 5:4;87:10;168:5,6

set (26)

 11:24;43:24;44:22;

 56:13,15;60:7;70:24;

 91:8;96:12;116:15;

 138:2,23;139:23;

 177:8;191:4;197:4;

 205:10;206:24;207:25;

 215:4;217:24;224:13;

 229:12;283:22;290:16;

 300:17

sets (3)

 61:22;226:24;273:14

setting (12)

 145:16;152:4;178:5;

 179:8;187:11,14;

 189:10;190:19;215:4;

 250:13;270:21;302:5

settled (1)

 166:12

settlement (10)

 23:17;25:5;30:15;

 32:4;46:17;88:23;89:2;

 133:13;167:18,19

settlements (2)

 144:8,17

settling (1)

 189:10

seven (2)

 188:15;213:25

seven-and-a-half (1)

 24:3

seventeen (3)

 89:20,21;290:6

seventh (1)

 19:19

seventy (1)

 204:1

several (8)

 9:13;39:19;67:4;

 73:5;133:10;175:1;

 249:5,5

severe (2)

 130:2,17

shakes (1)

 109:18

Shall (6)

 44:14;71:14,16;

 171:17;175:25;281:19

shame (3)

 130:3,5,13

shape (1)

 299:16

share (5)

 56:20;83:11;132:14;

 180:12;280:20

shared (3)

 47:21;55:11;118:23

shareholders (1)

 91:24

shares (1)

 277:6

sharing (1)

 78:18

Shield (2)

 89:12,13

shifts (1)

 177:10

shine (3)

 214:1;218:5,6

shined (2)

 216:14,14

shines (1)

 257:17

Ship (13)

 19:17,18,23;20:20;

 21:16,21;22:11;50:12;

 132:19,21;137:12,15,

 16

shoes (1)

 140:8

short (9)

 177:11;178:5;

 192:23;196:21;205:3;

 242:13;243:11;299:23;

 301:9

shorten (3)

 204:21;215:11,18

shortened (1)

 205:25

shortening (3)

 204:19;205:2,4

shorter (1)

 258:13

show (1)

 112:8

showed (1)

 125:6

showing (1)

 179:20

shown (1)

 130:8

shows (1)

 74:3

shut (1)

 19:16

sic (3)

 5:22;36:11;41:16

side (40)

 22:11;27:1;33:4;

 37:9;38:20;41:15;51:7;

 68:7;69:2;73:13;74:5,

 16;86:15;87:17;

 110:19;117:18;121:10;

 124:8;127:24;146:3;

 168:2;170:9;172:22;

 173:3;182:9;186:14;

 187:22;212:23;245:19;

 251:8;256:14;259:24;

 260:3;268:12,17;

 284:20;293:8;294:5;

 298:6,7

sides (7)

 38:3;41:18;114:4;

 127:25;189:21;243:13;

 291:12

side's (1)

 259:24

sight (2)

 22:24;232:5

sign (1)

 153:8

signal (3)

 123:25;295:11,11

signed (3)

 186:24,24;286:6

significance (4)

 51:21;53:14;259:6;

 279:11

significant (15)

 24:9;149:8;163:6;

 166:10;168:24;228:16,

 17;242:6,7;244:25;

 245:9,17,21;247:11;

 251:17

significantly (1)

 148:4

similarly (1)

 129:5

simple (15)

 16:12,17;24:18;

 30:20;32:1;47:17;

 49:20;109:10;128:23;

 139:5;142:9;156:14;

 185:10,20;302:10

simpler (1)

 101:23

simplify (1)

 43:12

simply (8)

 34:15;70:2,15;84:1;

 148:24;166:24;195:22;

 240:16

simultaneous (2)

 191:9;299:23

simultaneously (1)

 118:3

single (10)

 42:15;45:7,8;57:1;

 136:4;191:20;264:8;

 265:21;267:13;268:3

single- (1)

 152:17

Singleton (44)

 87:22;170:20;171:1;

 172:13;173:10;174:2,

 4,7,10,13,25;175:3,24;

 176:4,12,15,21,23;

 177:3,7;178:1,3,5,11,

 15,20,22,24;179:7,14,

 17;180:4,5,17;182:5;

 194:3;216:3;251:23,

 24;252:7,10,18;

 258:18;264:24

Singleton's (1)

 264:23

sit (8)

 6:1,2;83:7;117:5;

 188:9;220:25;221:14;

 250:17

site (1)

 297:17

sitting (14)

 6:3;47:16,19;74:16;

 81:5;86:13;142:7;

 213:8,12,13;221:1;

 281:9,13;284:8

situated (2)

 62:12;282:14

situation (9)

 30:23;109:1;164:1;

 166:18;248:12;273:6,

 7;281:17;298:17

situations (2)

 62:10;160:17

six (13)

 86:19,19;87:19;

 112:9;125:2;178:6;

 223:7;225:20;258:19;

 260:3;290:5,10;291:10

six- (1)

 32:24

Sixteen (6)

 204:22,23,24;206:2;

 249:21;290:6

sixty (1)

 263:22

sixty-four-dollar (1)

 12:9

size (3)

 62:11;142:19;285:2

Skikos (2)

 300:20;301:15

slam (2)

 121:3,21

sleeves (1)

 117:5

SLF (1)

 180:23

slightly (2)

 62:4;163:20

slow (3)

 111:2;175:19;214:4

small (1)

 93:7

smaller (2)

 60:21;137:7

smart (1)

 118:13

smoking (2)

 17:19;269:18

so-called (2)

 272:24;298:19

social (1)

 218:18

solely (5)

 90:17;157:20;160:8;

 164:22;251:19

solution (4)

 16:12;49:21;185:20;

 245:8

solve (3)

 75:22;85:25;118:14

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(30) seem - solve Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 333

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

solved (3)

 43:7;173:5;236:25

somebody (16)

 20:7;22:11;25:9;

 59:15;61:3;102:3;

 109:2;149:23;150:22;

 152:25;153:4;156:3;

 161:18;277:14;281:3;

 294:17

somebody's (1)

 232:4

somehow (10)

 11:24;43:23;151:20;

 153:12;162:18;232:4;

 289:9;292:19;294:10;

 295:12

someone (5)

 27:1;61:24;129:13;

 182:6;277:12

sometime (7)

 22:9;26:10;50:8;

 68:8;70:22;193:8;

 301:1

sometimes (10)

 38:6,6;89:21;115:7;

 160:21;244:18;275:8,

 17;290:20;293:21

somewhat (1)

 5:19

somewhere (5)

 6:10;48:5;50:8;74:3;

 91:20

Sonoma (1)

 201:13

soon (7)

 116:15;158:1;179:3;

 206:1;249:1;250:7;

 251:8

sooner (7)

 10:22;11:4;180:11;

 207:21;211:23;249:21;

 263:11

sorry (17)

 5:10;6:8;7:9;13:23;

 36:1;66:14,19;71:8;

 112:15;126:18;147:18;

 156:6;201:3;222:20;

 242:18;265:14;287:7

sort (11)

 37:20;70:10;176:19;

 182:20;189:17,23;

 193:9;197:9;213:2;

 245:5;300:21

sorts (3)

 41:20;80:23;280:17

sought (1)

 264:24

sound (5)

 27:15;122:20;138:2;

 218:8;241:13

sounded (1)

 286:3

sounds (4)

 51:14;122:3;165:7;

 228:8

source (1)

 35:24

spaces (1)

 5:13

spades (1)

 280:11

speak (7)

 63:11;78:11;88:9;

 95:7;110:7;222:11;

 285:11

SPEAKER (7)

 78:24;81:10;118:22;

 125:13;126:17;190:9;

 192:10

special (5)

 125:9;196:12;215:4,

 9;217:19

specialized (1)

 196:25

specific (7)

 9:2;11:6;99:12;

 159:4;194:6;218:1;

 242:24

specifically (6)

 13:24;30:1;93:14;

 116:24;168:15;299:11

specifics (1)

 187:18

Spector (1)

 198:14

speculated (1)

 123:1

speculative (1)

 138:7

speed (1)

 199:6

speedy (2)

 133:13;239:17

spend (5)

 21:11;45:10;88:13;

 156:18;262:12

spending (4)

 186:11;240:12;

 288:14,15

spit- (1)

 157:7

split (2)

 193:15;261:20

spoke (1)

 294:18

spot (2)

 99:12,13

spouse (1)

 98:1

spread (1)

 18:7

spring (1)

 286:21

square (4)

 109:7,8;202:1;

 280:12

squeezing (1)

 194:8

staff (2)

 87:11;301:4

stage (1)

 184:25

stake (1)

 277:13

stakeholders (9)

 8:14;15:4;26:4;

 43:11;257:21;259:6;

 260:19;262:16;271:8

stakes (1)

 35:15

stand (5)

 22:13;103:9;206:23;

 259:13;260:16

standalone (4)

 64:22;163:12;

 164:22;166:5

standard (6)

 30:13,13,14;141:11;

 145:8;164:9

standing (3)

 5:25;181:8;236:21

stands (1)

 270:8

stark (1)

 248:13

start (31)

 11:5;12:20;22:20;

 26:17,19;27:4;64:25;

 68:25;70:7;88:7;

 108:20;131:13;147:21;

 154:16;159:7;160:25;

 161:12;179:19;182:16;

 206:6;226:18,23;

 242:3;254:12;259:7;

 263:9,14,15;265:10;

 299:17;301:22

started (10)

 22:20;26:1;43:9;

 79:16;92:15,15,16;

 95:23;99:13;139:6

starting (4)

 68:8;70:9;153:11;

 263:22

starts (4)

 153:18;164:3;

 169:17,20

state (66)

 21:13;28:7,10;47:8;

 58:5;67:20;82:16,18;

 93:2;102:12;105:24;

 106:2;119:24;120:2,

 20;121:25;128:9;

 138:18;139:12;146:24;

 154:5;155:5;156:12;

 172:5,12;181:14;

 193:1;206:20;214:15,

 18;220:20;224:13;

 232:20;234:11,17;

 237:24,25;238:12,17;

 243:18;249:18;250:4,

 5,12;251:12;252:24;

 253:12;254:6;256:1;

 257:9,11,13;258:22;

 259:10,15;260:4,7;

 261:25;262:18;264:9,

 21;265:2;266:24;

 274:1;292:2,20

state- (3)

 11:10;260:7;300:13

state-court (23)

 72:14;152:11;

 172:20;187:24;195:23;

 222:14;235:3;239:17;

 242:25;246:6;250:8;

 257:5;258:1;259:19;

 260:9,20,21;262:10,12;

 263:3;264:24;271:9;

 280:3

stated (5)

 63:22;119:24;

 148:15;196:15;238:4

statement (6)

 49:19;110:14;112:2;

 192:14;219:21;294:4

statements (6)

 23:10;26:3;151:18;

 219:11;285:19;298:21

States (4)

 39:20;120:18;125:3;

 286:13

statue (1)

 128:7

status (6)

 76:15;150:8;190:18,

 22;193:20;299:16

statute (19)

 13:3,7;16:19;53:5;

 93:22,23;94:3;104:7;

 114:8;125:8;126:9;

 128:18;137:10;171:17;

 175:13;199:5;213:18;

 218:9;233:20

statutes (1)

 125:6

statute's (1)

 37:17

statutory (23)

 31:15;128:25;

 177:24;181:20;183:22;

 213:4;231:8;233:1,8;

 239:5;241:15;247:15;

 252:5;259:2;263:17;

 264:1,13,15;271:6;

 274:10;275:4;276:8;

 281:18

stay (109)

 5:22;9:12;16:9;25:1;

 45:3;48:4;58:8,9,15;

 64:18,19;65:3;69:6;

 76:23;80:25,25;82:10,

 18;88:1;90:17;116:24;

 117:11,17;140:6;

 146:16,17;150:5;

 151:14,17,21;153:9;

 155:7,24;170:14;

 173:4;179:2,19;180:2,

 10;190:7;191:3;

 192:25;194:13,21;

 195:25;196:13,25;

 197:2;198:23;199:24;

 203:7,20;206:12;

 207:2;211:9,9,24;

 216:1,18;218:13;

 220:3;237:20,21,22,23,

 24;238:4,7,11;239:4,7,

 14;240:3,5,20;241:4,8;

 242:6;245:1,21;

 246:14,24;247:21,22;

 248:23;250:3,18;

 251:6;252:9,9;253:5,

 14;254:4,5;255:3;

 257:4;263:16;267:22;

 272:20;273:1;275:3;

 281:20;285:22;287:4;

 288:9;294:7;296:9;

 299:7,10

stayed (4)

 198:22,25;199:2,10

stays (4)

 48:6;192:22;199:9;

 238:6

step (4)

 10:16;131:13;169:3,

 3

stepping (1)

 14:14

steps (1)

 85:14

Steve (1)

 203:1

stewards (1)

 67:5

stick (6)

 15:10;16:16;177:11;

 180:7;203:12;256:16

still (64)

 9:9,21;10:9;11:25,

 25;12:19;16:7;17:24;

 25:19;29:13,16;30:5;

 31:1,4,23,24,24;34:5;

 43:15;47:7;50:14;58:9,

 11;64:16;65:15;68:13,

 25;89:1;99:6,25;

 107:17;108:11;113:10;

 117:11,12,13;133:1;

 140:6;153:23;162:15;

 168:9;180:10;189:3,

 16,20;190:25;221:1,1;

 222:9;227:15;260:11;

 261:14,17;270:1,23;

 274:24;276:9;280:23;

 281:20;282:1;283:11,

 13;288:20;298:12

stipulate (2)

 205:4;214:7

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(31) solved - stipulate Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 334

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

stipulated (3)

 157:6;264:16;283:7

stipulation (2)

 301:20,23

stipulations (1)

 7:2

stop (11)

 99:15;103:17;114:2;

 120:22;136:9;205:11;

 224:21;225:18;227:7;

 237:16;268:7

story (13)

 10:1;11:18,19,19;

 19:1;58:22;61:19;

 221:10,15;225:3;

 282:2;298:5,5

straight (1)

 165:15

straightened (1)

 145:23

straightforward (1)

 119:16

strategy (1)

 266:10

Strauss (1)

 79:3

streamline (1)

 157:15

streamlining (2)

 142:1,5

street (4)

 214:24;225:23;

 228:7;268:14

stress (1)

 127:14

stressed (1)

 94:18

strict (3)

 31:8;141:7,8

strict-liability (1)

 30:13

strictly (1)

 96:24

strikingly (1)

 256:25

strip (2)

 16:4;36:10

strong (1)

 21:9

stronger (2)

 242:20,22

strongly (2)

 253:12,15

struck (2)

 273:10;276:10

structure (1)

 284:6

structures (2)

 216:11,12

struggle (2)

 222:22;223:10

stuck (3)

 112:14;137:4;172:25

stuff (4)

 34:3;103:20;112:6;

 232:25

stymieing (1)

 258:18

sub-battle (1)

 183:13

subject (7)

 25:18;27:8;37:17;

 182:14;183:9;187:8;

 192:18

submit (9)

 123:9,10,11,14,15,

 17;258:2;295:16;

 300:24

submitted (9)

 42:25;124:18;

 179:13;288:17,18;

 289:10,11,13;292:22

subquestion (2)

 44:25;45:2

subro (2)

 69:10;270:10

Subrogated (1)

 87:20

subrogation (20)

 15:16;23:9,13,23;

 67:20;75:8,9;147:23,

 24;148:3;149:10;

 151:9;241:24;246:22;

 247:19;255:10;270:5,

 13;287:22;288:10

subrogation's (1)

 49:23

subs (1)

 116:11

substance (1)

 17:19

substantial (7)

 103:4;107:8;132:13;

 141:7,9;285:21;286:25

substantive (8)

 237:23;238:5,8,18;

 239:5,17;240:4,15

substantively (1)

 251:25

substitute (1)

 17:17

subtract (1)

 290:3

success (1)

 18:18

successfully (1)

 178:13

succinctly (1)

 193:1

suddenly (2)

 243:17;259:16

suffer (2)

 31:5;217:1

suffered (13)

 13:15,17;62:25;93:6;

 104:10,13,14;129:8;

 130:24;137:17;163:19;

 182:19;191:18

suffering (1)

 127:9

suffers (1)

 218:19

sufficient (4)

 60:5;165:5;274:9;

 289:23

suffocate (1)

 130:15

suffocating (1)

 130:10

suggest (17)

 38:21;45:14;109:16,

 22;148:8;150:2;

 166:17;180:13;207:12,

 13;214:12;223:3;

 228:6;240:2;289:8;

 291:16;294:20

suggested (11)

 36:11;74:20;76:20;

 142:8;146:20;147:16;

 168:21;169:20;185:24;

 186:10;198:21

suggesting (15)

 38:21;112:17,18;

 145:10;214:20;222:8;

 230:22;235:8;254:14,

 16;259:8;291:9;293:9,

 10;296:4

suggestion (14)

 29:5;38:24;168:22;

 180:1;189:5;193:21;

 213:23;224:12;254:9;

 257:13;260:6;280:5;

 294:10;295:20

suggestions (1)

 151:23

suggests (2)

 189:16,23

suitability (1)

 214:13

sum (2)

 55:2;132:13

summaries (1)

 127:22

summary (3)

 12:24;121:2;183:15

summary-adjudication (1)

 27:24

sums (1)

 132:13

superior (32)

 34:9;63:6;111:9;

 114:6,14;131:12;

 132:12;156:2;174:1,

 21;179:4;203:21,22;

 204:5;205:21;206:11;

 209:11,14;212:18;

 219:21;221:1;225:11;

 227:1,9,24;249:1,8,10;

 250:12;261:2;281:12;

 292:14

superior-court (10)

 147:9;187:25;

 206:13;220:24;234:8;

 248:17;259:22;261:18;

 291:11;294:11

superseded (1)

 189:24

supervise (2)

 219:21;222:3

supervising (1)

 219:20

support (4)

 8:14;26:15;89:6;

 258:23

supported (1)

 37:18

supports (1)

 52:10

Suppose (14)

 10:7;31:1;55:20;

 59:4;81:4;85:11;136:9,

 11,12,13;137:11;

 220:1;248:2;259:21

supposed (11)

 39:15;114:6;122:14;

 146:5;193:5;218:15;

 219:21;225:12;270:25;

 279:14;284:9

suppression (1)

 183:21

supremacy (1)

 238:5

Supreme (22)

 10:11;29:9;30:4,10;

 31:2;119:19,22,23,23,

 25;120:2,4,8,18,20;

 121:24,25;123:2,7,16;

 166:15;238:13

Sure (87)

 6:16,19;9:7;16:8;

 17:7;23:11;35:10;

 36:14;43:22;44:21,21;

 51:3;52:17;73:24;74:4;

 82:22;84:16;85:20;

 89:5;91:3;93:24;104:3;

 106:9;113:10,19;

 132:8,20;137:7,25;

 143:1;145:14;153:15,

 25,25;156:5,8;157:2,2,

 13;158:5,25;159:22;

 160:2;161:21;162:20;

 165:25;167:7,9;

 168:18;169:10;175:18;

 178:11;179:21;182:9;

 186:7,18,21;187:21;

 205:13;207:7;210:13;

 211:16;213:23;218:1;

 219:8;222:25;225:22;

 226:22;234:7,13,14;

 239:24;241:14;252:2,

 4,7,17;261:6;263:25;

 265:3;271:23;275:15;

 277:18;279:3;283:7;

 287:23;290:25

surface (1)

 75:23

surgeon (1)

 104:11

surprised (3)

 52:16;214:14,18

surround (1)

 295:18

suspect (8)

 65:22;69:12;81:16;

 222:14;245:13;248:11,

 22;249:1

suspected (1)

 297:17

Swaine (2)

 8:8;256:23

Swaithes (1)

 237:13

swift (1)

 281:21

swing (2)

 34:3;144:20

swinging (1)

 113:19

switch (1)

 267:15

sympathetic (2)

 238:9,9

sympathy (1)

 231:13

system (8)

 11:11;175:19;258:1;

 259:19;260:20;266:24;

 271:9;281:16

systemic (1)

 164:20

T

table (10)

 52:17;64:19;173:3;

 175:7,11;177:8;

 224:25;244:15,19;

 245:7

tactic (1)

 294:24

talk (58)

 9:8,9;17:10;32:21;

 36:2;57:10;64:25;

 67:13;68:5;87:19;90:1,

 2;94:8;102:15;105:19;

 107:23;108:15;109:21;

 110:20;116:23;136:11,

 12;139:17,19;146:15;

 154:5;156:10,22;

 157:5,5,6,16,17,20;

 158:4,12;168:5;169:3;

 173:10;180:13,14,15;

 182:11;186:17;187:17;

 190:23;193:22;208:16;

 212:1,4;215:1,2;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(32) stipulated - talk Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 335

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 234:17;258:4;265:12;

 273:11;281:14;285:23

talked (13)

 68:6;76:8;80:16;

 172:8;193:17;195:14;

 197:9;200:1;215:11;

 226:6;242:8;243:25;

 296:7

talking (38)

 15:12;17:10;19:9,12;

 55:23,25;57:7;79:12;

 100:24;107:15,24,24,

 25;108:10,16;111:20;

 126:1;136:11;142:1;

 151:3;156:18;158:11;

 193:18;194:5;202:7;

 213:19;219:16,17;

 220:23;224:16;231:6;

 237:18;251:3;252:14;

 254:7;275:20,22;

 300:11

tandem (1)

 261:19

tantamount (1)

 58:20

target (1)

 169:12

taught (1)

 222:10

tax (1)

 238:16

TCC (30)

 10:4;18:3;24:16;

 26:17;36:23;42:2;

 44:22;46:15;60:12;

 68:12;69:7;70:20;

 83:21;96:25;147:7,18,

 23;155:5,16;156:24;

 170:9;171:19;189:9;

 191:6,10;219:11;

 236:14;247:13;286:14;

 299:23

teaches (1)

 265:5

tee (5)

 43:19;72:22;185:23;

 266:11;289:14

teed (1)

 65:25

teeing (1)

 188:25

teeing-up (2)

 37:21,22

teleconference (2)

 301:1,10

Telegraph (1)

 119:24

TelePacific (1)

 7:9

telephonic (1)

 302:5

telling (13)

 23:15;83:16;103:18;

 111:5;173:2;176:14;

 177:15;183:9;228:6;

 254:12;259:21;290:23;

 294:5

tells (5)

 190:1;211:14,15;

 261:3;283:3

ten (13)

 46:12;47:20,22,24;

 87:4;144:7,8;176:17;

 191:13;256:13,17;

 269:1;286:6

ten-day (1)

 131:20

tens (2)

 56:3;104:12

tentative (3)

 193:9,10,11

tenth (1)

 283:4

ten-week (1)

 284:11

term (4)

 183:3;193:19;214:3;

 231:9

terminate (1)

 277:14

termination (1)

 286:20

terms (31)

 20:11;22:19;92:19;

 128:23;132:21,21,22;

 138:16;140:16;142:21;

 148:3;152:5,13;153:6;

 157:19;164:9;169:5;

 182:4;207:11;213:15;

 214:20,21;215:9;

 229:2;249:20;250:10;

 277:13;284:22;291:2;

 293:15;295:18

territory (1)

 195:13

test (8)

 143:17;183:1;264:9;

 265:3;267:12;269:20;

 271:10;272:24

tested (1)

 219:7

testify (1)

 34:24

testimony (4)

 219:6;230:1,1,1

Thanks (2)

 78:7;235:14

That'll (2)

 61:13;251:5

theories (4)

 12:10;30:5;116:2;

 235:17

theory (5)

 11:25;16:20;113:24;

 121:20,20

thereafter (1)

 70:22

There'd (1)

 179:13

therefore (4)

 16:24;40:8;47:13;

 213:3

there'll (4)

 69:20;181:3;296:19,

 20

There're (12)

 9:6;10:5;27:7;31:15;

 34:14;38:4;41:20;

 43:25;47:3,20;65:15;

 109:15

there've (1)

 26:1

thinking (12)

 93:19;97:17;130:14;

 141:11;160:25;167:12;

 168:20;219:18,18;

 224:11;229:23;249:15

third (6)

 78:21;127:13;

 147:13;197:13;198:1;

 275:16

Thirdly (1)

 148:18

thirteen (7)

 69:8,9;155:12,15;

 195:24;252:3;296:10

thirty (12)

 8:24;22:17;122:6;

 136:16,24;217:22;

 223:21;234:2;261:4;

 263:22;285:14;301:10

thirty-five (2)

 155:20;261:4

thirty-page (1)

 121:6

though (10)

 49:1;75:20;107:1;

 163:2;215:5;229:3;

 242:17;279:1;282:19;

 297:1

thought (32)

 10:22;19:2;21:18,19;

 39:25;99:23;101:23;

 123:10;140:2,4;141:2,

 22;142:14;146:12;

 155:15,19;158:20;

 161:10;163:1,15;

 181:1;190:14,16;

 195:5;225:3,19;250:2;

 251:25;274:17;288:3;

 297:24;298:1

thoughts (2)

 157:1;214:6

thousands (10)

 56:3;62:11;69:1,1,

 25;70:8;104:12;118:5;

 237:21;296:16

threat (3)

 106:5;244:6;245:8

three (37)

 8:14;16:21;24:12;

 25:13;26:3;34:21;

 47:16;88:23;140:18,

 21;145:15;148:5,25;

 156:18;158:14,16;

 159:9;165:16;176:7;

 191:1;193:16;195:22;

 196:2;198:20;206:2,3,

 3;209:5,21;218:3;

 285:16;286:4,8;

 287:17;290:7,9;292:24

three- (4)

 121:5;287:11,15;

 292:14

three-and-a-half (6)

 217:4;290:9;291:3,4,

 13;292:24

three-day (1)

 41:15

three-phased (1)

 10:17

three-week (6)

 32:23;41:15;158:22;

 169:19;286:16;287:19

threw (2)

 107:12;164:2

throw (2)

 143:2,24

thrown (1)

 223:19

thumbs (2)

 270:16,16

ticking (1)

 236:10

timed (1)

 292:6

timely (1)

 203:11

times (14)

 9:13;18:17;24:12;

 28:9;34:16;41:16;73:5;

 89:25;116:25;145:15;

 149:22;237:21;244:14;

 254:12

timing (12)

 110:17;157:19;

 170:8;189:1;193:25;

 200:4;208:17;246:1;

 250:9;285:24;286:22;

 287:5

titled (1)

 233:22

titles (1)

 120:7

toast (1)

 81:15

today (57)

 7:19;16:15;17:6;

 19:19;21:8,11,12;

 22:20;23:4,25;34:13;

 39:10;42:18;53:14;

 63:20;64:7;73:7;75:17;

 76:18;77:10;79:12;

 86:6,14;88:2,12;90:2;

 93:18;109:19,23;

 139:14,22;141:1;

 145:16;148:24;156:16,

 18;158:3;168:13;

 169:16;189:9;192:5,

 19,20;193:6,14,17;

 203:6,7,19;236:10;

 240:12;244:12;248:18;

 262:23;263:11;271:16;

 300:22

today's (2)

 64:17;94:11

to-do (1)

 145:22

together (19)

 67:16;74:1;77:1,6,

 20;79:11,13;81:5;83:7;

 129:20;165:8,10;

 168:10;174:3;195:15;

 199:7;224:9;245:7;

 247:19

told (19)

 87:11;104:6;111:8;

 118:17;144:19;153:16;

 154:11;177:5,20;

 179:22;180:7;225:2,

 15;231:17;260:4;

 282:6;283:6;291:11;

 292:13

tomorrow (8)

 29:9;42:19;150:9;

 153:3,10;203:20;

 205:25;206:1

took (10)

 40:4;66:14;97:16;

 103:13,15;144:7;

 150:13;255:12;259:10;

 276:22

tool (7)

 167:19;171:5;

 227:24;235:2,2;271:6;

 276:23

toolbox (6)

 232:19,22;235:10;

 254:3;276:23,25

tools (3)

 167:19;232:19;254:3

tort (20)

 13:19;37:2,8;38:19;

 56:19;80:21;88:6,17;

 92:25;104:23;128:7;

 149:9;152:10;183:23;

 195:21;197:15,21,24;

 231:21;267:14

tort-claim (1)

 67:19

tort-claims (1)

 186:2

torts (5)

 36:21;83:1;97:16;

 224:14,14

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(33) talked - torts Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 336

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

total (10)

 8:13;24:16;108:5;

 136:24;142:21;152:6;

 226:11,13;260:2;291:5

totality (1)

 75:10

to-the- (1)

 183:25

touch (2)

 27:7;163:22

touched (1)

 174:14

tout (1)

 297:12

towards (2)

 32:6;245:4

towel (1)

 107:12

tower (1)

 103:4

towns (1)

 22:22

track (8)

 84:13;120:6;201:20;

 220:14;230:23;247:8;

 252:19;279:18

tracking (1)

 302:7

tracks (2)

 226:17;280:6

trade (1)

 231:12

tradeoff (1)

 231:24

traditional (7)

 12:11;35:7;84:17;

 97:24;112:1;138:25;

 203:12

traditionally (2)

 290:13,15

tragedies (3)

 104:13;130:25;219:3

tragedy (2)

 20:25;132:22

tragic (1)

 22:22

trailer (1)

 62:24

trained (1)

 191:16

transferred (1)

 179:4

transformer (1)

 103:3

translate (1)

 290:24

translates (1)

 240:19

transmission (1)

 103:4

transparency (1)

 216:24

transport (1)

 5:21

trauma (1)

 130:2

travel (1)

 194:11

treat (2)

 137:12;297:22

treated (2)

 19:7;21:21

treating (1)

 172:2

treatment (1)

 117:13

Tredinnick (13)

 122:19;184:11;

 185:5,7,7,16,19,25;

 186:5,18,21;187:2,4

tree (3)

 101:16,19;201:12

trees (4)

 164:11,12;201:13;

 202:1

tremendous (2)

 23:3;266:5

trespass (3)

 90:7,14;200:21

triable (1)

 103:1

trial (240)

 10:12;16:5;19:3,17,

 18,20;25:5;26:17,18;

 28:6;31:5,15;32:23,23,

 24,25;34:9;35:1,16;

 36:11;39:16;41:15;

 47:8,25;48:2;50:14;

 51:12;53:5;63:4;68:8;

 70:3,5;75:6;83:15;

 94:8,9,14;95:14;96:20;

 97:24;98:9;99:2;

 102:11;104:19;105:12,

 15,21;109:13;112:4;

 113:24;114:14;118:1;

 120:25;121:1;122:14;

 129:5;131:21;133:14;

 136:14,15;138:25;

 139:20,22;140:19;

 143:5,10,16,17,23;

 144:10,15,18,18,20;

 145:11,16;146:1,25;

 147:9,12;148:6;

 152:10,12,14,16;153:3,

 7,11,18;154:25;155:3;

 156:1;159:7;161:12;

 164:3;165:16,22;

 167:19;169:17,19;

 172:1;173:20;178:8;

 179:7,10,11;180:16,22,

 25;187:25;199:24;

 200:3;201:18;202:24;

 205:10;206:6,25;

 207:8,13,14,16,16,24,

 24;208:7,8,17;209:3,

 17;210:7,8;211:12,15,

 22;213:18;214:13;

 215:8,11;217:2,25;

 218:4;219:5;221:10;

 225:4;226:19,24,25;

 227:12;228:15;231:4,

 4;233:18;239:17;

 243:18,19;245:8;

 246:6;247:16;248:18;

 251:4;253:14;255:11,

 18,22;257:5;258:20,

 22;259:8,17,23;260:16,

 20,21,24;261:4,8,12;

 262:13;263:3,9,21,25;

 264:10,17,18;265:8,8,

 17,22;268:3,8,8;269:3,

 6,11,13;271:10;

 272:17;274:6,15,17;

 279:3;281:10,11,12,23;

 282:1;284:3,11,13;

 286:2,15;289:7,9,10,

 14,17,17,19,19,24;

 290:6,7,8,8,17,19;

 291:1,23;292:7,14,16,

 23;293:2,5,16;294:20;

 295:20;296:24,24

trial-court (1)

 34:2

trials (24)

 36:10;91:6;96:21;

 108:20;125:17;141:18;

 144:7;155:1;156:1;

 175:5;177:9,17;

 196:14,15;201:23;

 226:19;228:21;244:6;

 247:23;267:17;269:12;

 292:6,7;293:22

tried (24)

 24:1;53:6;90:16;

 105:17;109:17;113:16;

 141:17,20;142:6,17;

 157:2;198:22;208:21;

 218:1;246:12;257:11;

 259:19;270:10;272:25;

 289:17,18;291:12;

 292:23;295:23

trier (5)

 33:11;91:6;102:13;

 112:11;253:17

tries (1)

 48:5

triggers (1)

 189:17

trip (1)

 137:24

tri-phase (1)

 116:13

tripling (1)

 112:22

trouble (4)

 87:12;183:18;

 218:15;266:16

troubled (1)

 218:6

true (28)

 28:13;29:7;32:11;

 36:5;52:24,25;75:8;

 82:16;92:10;116:10;

 117:7,10;118:21;

 158:20;214:14;222:14;

 227:11;228:1;234:22;

 243:21;245:11;259:12;

 262:25;263:2;278:8;

 293:21;294:2;297:2

truly (2)

 67:5;203:10

Trump (1)

 150:8

truncated (8)

 105:21;106:25;

 107:2;108:22;109:13;

 174:18,23;175:6

trust (66)

 24:3,9;36:9;44:25;

 45:6,22;46:11;47:11,

 12,14;49:6,11,12;50:1;

 51:17,18;55:4;58:4,20;

 60:4,10;61:21;62:15;

 116:15;131:10,15;

 132:10,14;133:7,11,12;

 134:6,8,13,14;135:8,

 16;136:3,3,3;137:7,16,

 19,20;138:5;146:7,7;

 148:19;150:23;196:4,

 10,17;197:5,6;198:2,9,

 18,18;271:12;272:8;

 274:25;281:25;282:5;

 291:14,14;296:23

trustee (7)

 46:16;47:16;55:7;

 60:9,11;61:13;62:17

trustees (1)

 46:14

trustee's (1)

 61:13

trusts (4)

 46:10,13;57:23;

 197:22

truth (2)

 218:5,7

try (49)

 5:15;22:25;23:4;

 24:21;40:2;49:13;58:5;

 68:2;77:1;87:12;94:2;

 96:4;98:8;109:11;

 116:11;139:12;146:8;

 149:13;162:8;187:7;

 193:1;196:13;214:25;

 218:3,4;221:20;

 223:12;224:17;241:25;

 242:1;244:21,22,24;

 246:11;254:23;259:18;

 260:19;261:21;265:4;

 276:9;277:8;281:22;

 288:18;289:20;293:23;

 295:8;298:10;299:5,20

trying (38)

 10:13;16:8,16;34:17;

 36:10;67:5,25;90:3,6;

 94:5;105:5;111:24;

 125:7;135:20;137:24,

 24;138:2;155:21;

 164:1,25,25;206:14;

 224:15;226:16;234:5,

 12;240:1;244:10,11,

 11;245:4;260:17;

 288:7,8;291:22;

 292:12,17;294:11

Tubbs (112)

 9:23;12:13;15:10;

 17:13,21;19:23;26:5,

 13,16;29:11,13;34:6;

 58:5;67:17;72:5,7;

 74:22,24;75:5;88:1;

 108:8,9,11;140:16,24;

 141:16,21;142:17,18,

 20;143:1,5,10,17;

 144:20;145:4;146:21,

 25;147:9;152:9,16,22;

 154:24;158:13;159:7;

 162:8,9,12,14,15,18,

 25;163:2,5,17,22,25;

 164:3,15,22;165:4,6;

 177:19;189:6;193:15;

 195:24;196:16,19;

 198:21,24;199:20,24;

 200:3,5;206:24;

 216:12;218:5;224:15,

 16,17;226:12,16,25;

 228:6,24;230:21;

 231:3;232:15;235:9;

 242:10,12;251:5;

 257:10;258:10;259:18;

 270:6,9;271:7;280:15,

 16;289:17,19;290:9;

 291:2;292:23;293:2,9,

 9;294:7,9;297:11,23

Tubbs-fire (1)

 11:19

Tubbs-related (1)

 243:15

tune (1)

 142:14

turn (5)

 170:13;195:23;

 199:16;265:12;266:16

turning (2)

 100:18;179:24

turns (2)

 17:24;262:13

tweak (1)

 76:20

Tweed (1)

 66:19

twelve (6)

 259:16,17,25;260:2;

 281:13;283:1

twenty (19)

 14:6;43:1;86:17;

 89:16;134:6,12,13;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(34) total - twenty Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 337

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 136:12,15,25;137:17,

 18;201:23;215:13;

 217:22;261:8;267:18,

 22;293:24

twenty-billion-dollar (1)

 134:9

twenty-eight (2)

 179:8;289:1

twenty-five (1)

 214:2

twenty-five-year-old (1)

 265:25

twenty-four (2)

 175:6;204:17

twenty-million-dollar (3)

 134:12;135:7;283:2

twenty-odd (2)

 157:9;163:24

twenty-one (4)

 89:20,21;172:7;

 179:8

twenty-six (1)

 216:9

twenty-trial (1)

 131:21

twenty-two (10)

 102:25;103:5,10;

 107:4;109:13;113:2,3;

 216:10;226:6,9

twice (6)

 122:2;186:23,25;

 195:15;220:25;221:17

two (92)

 9:25;10:18;17:12;

 25:12;28:14,16;31:22;

 32:2;36:25;45:9,11;

 56:5;57:5,14;63:2;

 67:14;68:9;72:14,18;

 73:25;74:1;88:25;89:8,

 22;90:6,10;96:4,11,18;

 97:8;99:2,22,22;

 110:25;113:23;116:10,

 16,21;119:15;125:21;

 126:13;138:24;142:7;

 146:2;147:17;148:4,

 16;154:3;158:8,9,10,

 16;162:25;163:2,8,11;

 168:23;172:15;174:2;

 186:24,24,25;189:21;

 190:19;192:14,21,21,

 24,25;201:24;203:25;

 206:1;207:25;208:22,

 22;209:21,21;215:15;

 221:15;230:1;236:14;

 243:11;248:3,4,4;

 258:4,5;267:13,13;

 276:14;284:21;285:21

two-experts (1)

 229:25

two-judge (4)

 79:24;80:2;84:23;

 147:12

two-step (1)

 84:24

two-thirds (1)

 108:11

two-week (1)

 32:23

type (10)

 13:8;15:12;57:6;

 88:19;107:19;174:21;

 253:18;264:10,11;

 277:2

types (7)

 80:18;88:23,25;

 95:18;125:19;130:25;

 183:22

typical (5)

 81:19;92:19;132:12;

 231:20;249:21

typically (6)

 46:10;129:17;

 135:17;179:8,14;

 290:21

U

UCC (3)

 8:17;272:1;300:17

ultimate (4)

 17:24;26:14;60:8;

 258:6

ultimately (11)

 15:25;20:4;24:23;

 49:12;56:22;61:22;

 64:7;79:15;85:19;

 219:9;271:10

Um-hum (45)

 12:4,22;14:1,16;

 19:13,22;31:3;32:19;

 34:4;35:2;39:5,12;

 41:5;43:21;47:23;50:2;

 57:8;59:6;60:19;65:9;

 67:15;70:6;81:3,22;

 84:20;85:18;99:5;

 101:8;144:9;153:20;

 155:23;163:3,7,14;

 169:18;235:5;237:19;

 239:15;244:3;248:24;

 266:14;269:17;270:3;

 279:22;289:15

unable (1)

 111:4

unambiguously (1)

 45:7

unanimity (1)

 192:17

unanimous (1)

 149:3

unattended (1)

 194:16

uncertainties (1)

 17:1

uncertainty (3)

 29:16,19;70:18

unclear (2)

 47:14;48:7

uncovered (1)

 250:22

under (41)

 6:25;9:16;31:13;

 34:6;35:13;37:4;38:7;

 54:12;60:20;71:12;

 72:10;96:1,7;99:7;

 105:4;112:1,10;

 121:19;148:2;152:11;

 157:16;162:22;164:14;

 171:5;172:2;174:18;

 176:5;182:14;198:12;

 205:6;206:12;223:5;

 230:20;237:7,8;249:9;

 251:12,18;255:24;

 284:17;285:13

underestimated (1)

 282:13

underfunding (2)

 196:5,11

underlying (2)

 238:7;247:20

Understood (16)

 66:2;74:21;112:3;

 130:16,18;154:13;

 170:4;174:13;175:3;

 178:1,15,20;183:5;

 213:2;234:25;241:10

underway (2)

 248:4,5

undoubtedly (1)

 212:13

undue (5)

 104:9,12;176:1,2,9

unduly (3)

 71:2;72:10;231:8

unenviable (1)

 88:16

unfairness (1)

 137:1

unfortunate (1)

 175:16

unfortunately (2)

 104:15;137:5

UNIDENTIFIED (6)

 78:24;81:10;118:22;

 126:17;190:9;192:10

uniformly (2)

 38:3,4

uninfluenced (1)

 295:15

unique (3)

 9:18;196:23;276:8

UNISON (2)

 5:7;192:7

unit (1)

 125:12

United (2)

 39:20;120:18

universe (2)

 37:4;115:7

Unlawful (1)

 232:25

unless (14)

 11:22;41:17;83:13,

 13;151:2;153:23;

 170:10;172:25;175:11;

 194:14;257:13;277:13;

 294:7;298:19

unlike (2)

 118:24;183:13

unliquidated (8)

 16:23;182:15,21,24;

 183:3,8,16;184:3

unprecedented (3)

 160:5;224:1,10

UNR (4)

 125:21,25;126:2,10

unrepresentative (3)

 264:8;265:22;271:10

unsecured (3)

 70:23;79:6;279:1

unsupported (1)

 121:12

up (120)

 10:17;12:24;19:16;

 22:17;24:3;25:15;42:7,

 13;43:19;44:13,23;

 46:16;47:20,21;49:16;

 50:25;54:10;60:7;

 65:25;66:1;69:8;70:24;

 72:22;74:3;78:6;83:13,

 14,19,19;86:20;87:19;

 90:11;92:6;94:6,25;

 96:19,24;100:20,21;

 103:8;107:18;112:8,

 12,17;114:10,12;

 116:15;117:5;123:3;

 135:1;137:24;138:2,9;

 140:15;146:6,9;155:4,

 5,6,19;159:10;165:7;

 166:5,14;168:1;

 169:11;177:23;181:10;

 185:23;188:4,25;

 189:12;190:25;195:13;

 198:16;205:15;212:9,

 17;214:23;215:18;

 216:22;220:4,11;

 223:14;224:13,25;

 226:10;232:17;235:15;

 245:8;249:11;252:11;

 255:18;258:21;259:13;

 260:16;262:10;263:8;

 264:22;266:11;267:20;

 270:8,16;277:14;

 279:7;280:4;285:14;

 286:1,21;287:9,24;

 288:7,8,19;289:14;

 299:12;300:17,18;

 301:2;302:5

upfront (2)

 30:12;32:1

uploaded (1)

 7:13

upon (20)

 15:12;18:6;25:1,17;

 32:3;62:11,15;98:9;

 198:14;202:1;219:6;

 238:7;242:14;251:19;

 258:25;263:7;274:10,

 12;277:7;279:11

upsets (1)

 85:22

upside (1)

 104:19

upstairs (5)

 40:23;44:24;45:4;

 52:3;60:3

urge (1)

 242:3

USC (4)

 37:5;38:19;51:8;

 189:22

use (22)

 34:15;41:12;42:13;

 44:24;67:18;77:5,5;

 142:5;146:10,11;

 164:2;193:18,19;

 201:7;232:9,14;246:7;

 271:23;273:22;283:11;

 289:2;294:24

used (12)

 22:17;34:16;78:2;

 139:11;141:17;172:21;

 214:3;255:8;289:25;

 290:13,16;295:11

useful (1)

 235:2

uses (1)

 232:19

using (8)

 44:13;78:6;130:19,

 20;155:2;196:25;

 281:18;292:22

usually (1)

 293:17

utility (5)

 96:3,9;99:4;123:19;

 129:4

utilize (1)

 224:12

V

vacated (1)

 241:8

Vaknin (3)

 7:8,8,15

valid (1)

 156:25

valuable (5)

 109:15;152:5,18;

 242:9;243:7

valuation (3)

 108:13;227:3;300:19

value (13)

 11:5;24:7,13;56:10,

 11,12;108:10;201:12;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(35) twenty-billion-dollar - value Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 338

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 226:14;245:9,17;

 250:3;295:25

valued (2)

 54:25;57:17

values (2)

 226:24;289:25

variable (1)

 14:3

variables (1)

 33:6

variation (1)

 269:11

variety (5)

 21:21;38:2;46:6;

 59:17;158:23

various (1)

 107:6

vast (2)

 50:13;74:1

vegetation (3)

 164:8,10;243:1

venue (2)

 103:2;109:18

verdict (28)

 47:9;68:9;136:15;

 143:19,20;145:4;

 152:17;200:20,21;

 215:22;243:8;245:9;

 247:24;248:7,9;

 255:23;256:8;258:9;

 264:6;267:14;268:12;

 269:19;279:6;284:21;

 294:19;295:10,10;

 296:20

version (1)

 179:24

versus (6)

 77:14;111:14;

 193:16;261:20;263:3;

 292:7

vested (1)

 281:18

vests (1)

 277:1

vetted (1)

 219:7

via (1)

 275:16

viable (2)

 96:1;129:2

Victim (14)

 62:21,24;74:3;75:22;

 113:21;129:8;132:9,

 14,15;136:13;137:16;

 202:12;229:1;284:21

victims (57)

 20:19;21:7;23:1;

 24:10,10;41:24;50:13;

 60:7,21;63:2;70:23;

 74:2,5;79:17;89:6;

 93:6,13;104:20,21,23;

 109:14;111:3;116:14;

 132:16,19;137:4,5,15;

 148:1;152:10;163:17;

 170:22;177:2,11;

 198:1;202:4;206:14;

 210:17;214:2;216:4;

 223:23;225:15;231:11,

 21;238:10;274:5;

 278:13;281:4,13,25;

 294:22,23;295:2;

 296:13,16;298:4,11

victim's (2)

 197:23;202:10

video (1)

 251:2

videos (1)

 130:9

view (41)

 17:9;22:13;37:16,18;

 40:11,17,20;42:15,24;

 68:13;72:12,21;76:13;

 93:11;124:16,24;

 128:11;131:9;135:21;

 137:15;140:23;158:13;

 186:12;188:25;193:11;

 196:9;200:8,9;202:19;

 205:24;213:16,16;

 216:25,25;243:12;

 275:4;277:6;278:14,

 25;279:2;296:1

viewed (1)

 11:15

views (4)

 43:10;180:12,15;

 225:16

violated (1)

 96:13

violates (1)

 232:4

virtually (2)

 14:4;63:22

vision (1)

 113:19

Volkswagens (1)

 106:10

volume (1)

 224:2

voted (1)

 198:1

votes (1)

 50:1

voting (3)

 91:22,25;94:4

W

wager (1)

 259:6

Wait (11)

 8:3;9:3;63:3,15;

 97:11,11;125:10;

 248:6;265:23;279:24;

 283:19

waiting (4)

 225:10,21;228:23;

 231:19

waivable (1)

 233:11

waive (2)

 148:14;233:8

walk (5)

 47:10;72:5;226:15;

 228:14;246:9

Walker (1)

 291:17

walking (1)

 250:5

Walkup (1)

 110:6

wand (1)

 226:4

wants (13)

 87:22;116:15;135:2;

 151:3;169:20;180:13;

 182:5;184:5,8;191:11;

 233:25;246:25;297:12

warts (1)

 276:22

waste (7)

 21:10;77:10;121:24;

 235:7,20;255:12;256:1

wasting (1)

 177:16

watch (1)

 171:4

watching (1)

 130:9

wave (1)

 87:14

way (107)

 6:21;9:19;10:4;

 11:10;19:3;21:10,15,

 18;22:25;27:5;34:13;

 39:9;40:14;43:11;

 44:12;46:10,11,22;

 50:4;54:12;55:14;

 59:20,22;63:13;64:16,

 18;72:15;75:23;76:1,

 20;77:19;79:16;85:24;

 91:15;93:22;94:3;

 98:10;99:21;108:17;

 115:24;116:9,10;

 121:7,23;122:9,10;

 123:25;129:7;133:14;

 134:16,18,20;135:17;

 136:23;137:9,10,25;

 138:11,20;141:4,5,21;

 142:6,15;146:5;

 149:11;150:25;153:12,

 23;157:12;158:17;

 159:12;165:19;175:21;

 177:18;186:3;189:25;

 190:1;196:25;200:8;

 206:23;216:17;227:14;

 229:22;230:11,11,14;

 231:11,19;232:13;

 238:25;242:16;248:9;

 251:21;257:20;266:18;

 268:20;277:14;278:8;

 279:6;284:7;286:9;

 294:21;297:19;300:5;

 302:10,11

ways (9)

 21:22;59:18;68:10;

 73:3;133:13;191:2;

 243:11;280:17,20

weaker (1)

 242:22

WEDNESDAY (1)

 5:1

week (15)

 26:5,6;30:4;188:8;

 191:8;192:5;208:22;

 220:11;224:14;235:4;

 237:21;287:16;290:21,

 22,23

weeks (38)

 75:7;99:22;112:9;

 122:23;123:3;140:18,

 21;159:9;190:19;

 206:2,3,3;207:25;

 208:22;209:6;211:17;

 213:25;215:18;217:4;

 259:9,16,17,18,19,25;

 260:2,3;286:4,8;

 287:17;290:7,9,9;

 291:3,4,10,13;292:24

weeks' (1)

 34:21

weigh (2)

 41:3;191:11

weighed (1)

 69:11

weight (1)

 144:11

welcome (4)

 35:11;95:1;180:12;

 181:5

welcomed (1)

 25:7

well-determined (1)

 89:2

Welles (2)

 141:4,5

well-represented (1)

 73:25

Wells (1)

 141:8

well-settled (1)

 88:22

well-versed (1)

 9:17

weren't (6)

 112:2,9;116:4;

 139:11;195:5;287:13

West (1)

 119:24

Western (1)

 160:7

whacked (1)

 69:12

whatever's (1)

 302:11

What's (37)

 6:13;9:3;45:2,2;

 47:14;48:7;76:17;

 77:13;87:15;100:25;

 109:9;114:11;115:17;

 127:3;139:21;152:18;

 154:4;189:17;190:3;

 207:8;208:8;209:13,

 18,18;215:13;216:23;

 220:4,7;221:20;222:5;

 225:3;248:6;250:7;

 259:23;278:25;279:2;

 297:25

wheel (1)

 115:10

whenever (2)

 158:3;209:24

when's (3)

 65:7,7,8

whereas (1)

 132:15

where's (1)

 7:18

Whereupon (1)

 302:16

whichever (3)

 34:13;59:23;261:3

whipsaw (1)

 108:19

whip-sawing (1)

 109:11

white (1)

 248:13

who'd (1)

 88:8

whoever's (1)

 291:22

whole (20)

 18:22;27:6;31:10;

 39:7;49:4;85:10;

 108:17;131:3;133:23;

 145:18;156:23;181:8;

 222:22;231:10;232:5;

 253:9;284:3;291:6,7,8

whomever (4)

 42:12;268:6,21,22

who's (10)

 38:5;60:9;75:16;

 76:8;94:12;104:11;

 119:13;186:18;214:24;

 236:13

whose (3)

 101:2,6;279:11

who've (1)

 54:9

wildfire (12)

 21:2,7;23:1;42:16;

 60:6;61:22;79:17;

 85:17;177:11;211:6;

 273:15;281:25

wildfires (5)

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(36) valued - wildfires Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 339

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 19:21;21:21;22:2,22;

 50:13

willing (5)

 148:6,19;237:25;

 238:2;244:21

Willkie (2)

 151:7;241:24

Willoughby (1)

 181:11

win (9)

 31:4;121:1,19;

 159:16,25;265:9,17;

 269:2,11

wind (2)

 258:21;267:20

window (2)

 158:22,23

winning (3)

 14:8;122:3;231:7

wins (4)

 68:10;162:19;268:5;

 270:24

wish (6)

 7:4;83:11;105:12;

 211:7;288:6;293:21

wishes (2)

 110:1;132:10

withdraw (6)

 39:4,11;40:13;

 150:10,12;151:1

withdrawal (1)

 40:4

withdraws (1)

 81:20

within (18)

 11:11;33:20;36:24;

 44:25;48:8;68:1;89:22;

 122:23;179:10;206:1,

 7;233:3;236:16;286:4;

 290:9;291:13;292:24;

 299:7

without (25)

 27:13;53:18;55:13;

 90:3,22;91:7;94:21;

 99:18;101:25;103:10;

 114:19;121:1;148:7;

 150:14;192:17,25;

 202:8;204:9;211:10;

 251:20;255:21;281:1;

 287:5;297:13;299:17

witness (9)

 41:14;98:6;102:14,

 15;172:15;214:17;

 291:25,25;292:1

witnesses (7)

 97:8;117:4;139:5,17;

 157:6;172:15;281:3

women (1)

 6:4

won (6)

 68:23,23;93:1;

 143:22;144:19;269:12

wonder (1)

 221:20

wonderful (4)

 170:7;171:5,5;216:5

wondering (2)

 21:13;183:18

Wong (1)

 214:24

wood (4)

 34:17,21;113:8;

 203:4

word (13)

 128:19;130:19;

 141:10;142:5;171:17;

 193:10;222:3;232:7,

 19;256:25;257:1;

 281:18;298:14

words (32)

 10:1,12;28:4;36:25;

 37:11;38:18;59:7;61:1;

 63:21;65:2;84:15;86:2;

 92:1;120:24;126:8;

 130:6;148:3;193:13;

 200:3;229:21;231:17;

 233:2;243:16;248:16;

 264:19;265:6,6;

 272:14;273:22;278:9;

 279:3;293:1

work (20)

 5:15;35:13,14;46:10;

 77:2,8,22;79:17;82:14;

 86:5;133:14;135:17;

 136:23;138:11;156:19;

 158:23;184:25;223:17;

 267:14;299:4

workaround (1)

 205:19

worked (3)

 7:2;264:9;268:25

working (8)

 46:11;60:12;118:6;

 142:24;147:8;171:4;

 186:8;300:20

works (8)

 16:9;41:8;137:9;

 138:1;190:1;234:12;

 282:25,25

world (10)

 9:19;26:18;36:20;

 56:24;97:21;106:14;

 111:25;172:23;228:3;

 236:6

worlds (4)

 70:3,4;258:9;260:25

worried (2)

 74:6,7

worry (4)

 32:20;76:4;222:6;

 243:20

worth (5)

 34:21;47:10;62:1;

 186:10;214:6

wrinkle (1)

 169:7

write (1)

 219:14

writing (1)

 123:1

written (3)

 192:24;301:19,22

wrong (19)

 27:15;29:20;35:12;

 57:21;82:12;92:1;

 93:24;98:19,21;119:8;

 134:21;219:5;229:22;

 253:15;268:18,20;

 278:9;287:23;288:12

wronged (1)

 219:4

wrongful (6)

 36:20;43:24;129:6;

 148:21;202:9,12

wrongful-death (2)

 37:9;40:15

wrote (2)

 140:14;272:7

Y

year (6)

 70:22;116:20;208:8;

 210:19;211:4;278:12

year-and-a-half (1)

 126:4

year-old (1)

 266:1

years (14)

 16:21;35:13;92:8;

 110:25;113:23;116:16;

 176:7,11,13;233:13;

 236:12,13;269:1;

 284:21

Yep (2)

 48:1;97:12

yesterday (14)

 15:16;21:12,20;

 22:20;23:7;26:12;

 79:16;190:19;192:19;

 225:7;229:24;273:19,

 21;299:4

Z

zero (12)

 13:2;14:6;17:2;

 18:18;19:1;33:16,17;

 91:19;143:25;159:13,

 17;265:19

zinc (1)

 297:17

1

1 (9)

 9:20,20;17:10;43:10;

 119:18;123:23;186:10;

 191:1;227:3

1:10 (1)

 190:11

10.5-billion-dollar (1)

 177:1

10:51 (1)

 87:9

100,000 (5)

 47:10,19,21;48:4;

 56:19

1040 (1)

 82:11

1054 (18)

 20:20;21:6;60:6;

 67:9;70:16;82:12;

 172:4;173:4;176:25;

 216:3,4;223:5;225:16;

 232:3;277:6,22;

 278:13,16

1054s (1)

 225:14

106 (1)

 290:5

107 (1)

 289:20

10Q (3)

 141:4,6,8

11 (2)

 19:5;87:8

11:08 (1)

 87:9

120 (11)

 179:10;205:23;

 206:6,7;208:3;209:24;

 211:21;217:25;258:12,

 24;289:20

13 (1)

 38:7

130 (1)

 112:18

14 (1)

 5:1

1411 (6)

 51:8;53:16,17;54:4,

 10;189:22

143 (1)

 126:3

14th (1)

 177:25

150- (1)

 201:13

1504 (2)

 82:12,12

157 (3)

 93:23,25;127:14

157b (1)

 37:5

157b2 (5)

 38:19;54:12;57:10,

 25;128:7

157b2b (1)

 129:25

157b5 (2)

 51:7;52:21

17 (1)

 21:20

18 (1)

 21:21

180 (1)

 205:21

1940 (1)

 123:7

1976 (1)

 113:15

1992 (1)

 126:4

1994 (2)

 125:6,22

19th (3)

 192:5,9;300:3

1st (1)

 59:12

2

2 (23)

 9:20,22;15:10,25;

 17:10,12;29:11,12;

 31:5;32:18;34:14;37:6,

 7;43:10;76:22;122:18;

 162:9,18;163:12;

 164:3,15;189:6;286:6

2:30 (1)

 190:5

2:37 (1)

 190:11

20 (2)

 89:25,25

200,000 (1)

 201:13

2017 (2)

 22:22;42:16

2018 (2)

 22:22;42:16

2019 (1)

 5:1

2020 (3)

 161:1;175:8;177:10

20th (3)

 74:3;191:9;299:24

21 (1)

 124:23

21st (1)

 75:23

22 (1)

 286:13

24 (2)

 286:8;288:1

24th (1)

 75:24

250 (1)

 109:6

27th (6)

 190:20;191:5;193:8,

 20;194:12;299:14

28 (4)

 37:5;38:19;51:7;

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(37) willing - 28 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 340

of 341
PG&E CORPORATION AND 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Case No. 19-30088; Chapter 11

August 14, 2019

 189:22

29th (2)

 59:8;276:15

3

3 (16)

 12:17,19;15:25;

 17:11;19:17,24;20:4;

 22:9;43:8;122:18;

 156:22;162:10,16,23;

 164:18;189:7

3:57 (1)

 256:18

30 (3)

 175:7;177:10;276:9

30,000 (1)

 206:14

300 (1)

 109:6

300,000 (1)

 24:7

30th (9)

 21:12;67:7,23;

 153:22,23;171:24;

 172:2;210:19;276:12

3421 (1)

 181:15

36 (2)

 237:7,15

36,000 (1)

 216:11

36a (2)

 204:1;205:6

36f (1)

 237:8

4

4:13 (1)

 256:18

40- (2)

 13:14;14:17

40,000 (1)

 206:14

400 (1)

 89:25

5

5 (1)

 128:7

5,200 (2)

 170:22;180:24

5,600 (1)

 216:11

5:05 (1)

 300:9

5:06 (1)

 302:16

50,000 (3)

 13:14;14:18;206:14

500 (1)

 109:8

500,000 (3)

 14:9;41:23;48:3

500,000-dollar (1)

 48:3

502 (20)

 9:16;18:14,15;34:6;

 35:14;112:1;139:2;

 171:5;172:22;173:2;

 177:5,18;180:6;181:4;

 216:15;228:3;230:20;

 267:8;269:15;276:23

502b (1)

 9:22

502c (6)

 71:12;106:13,17,25;

 175:25;182:14

503b9 (3)

 6:11,25;7:4

506 (1)

 126:3

513 (1)

 126:3

522 (3)

 126:17,18,19

522b (1)

 126:25

522b11 (1)

 126:20

522d11 (1)

 126:24

523d11b (1)

 126:15

523d11d (1)

 126:16

571 (1)

 129:25

6

6/30 (1)

 281:22

625 (1)

 129:25

689 (1)

 205:21

694 (1)

 205:21

7

7 (3)

 13:18;19:5;77:13

7.5 (1)

 109:2

700 (1)

 109:8

773 (1)

 297:16

79 (1)

 92:15

7-and-a-half (1)

 24:8

7th (2)

 159:6;169:17

8

8.5 (1)

 23:13

9

9:30 (4)

 5:1;190:20;191:5;

 299:14

96 (1)

 290:5

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

operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net

(38) 29th - 96 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3563 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:13:37 Page 341

of 341