1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 

EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 1

of 70
· · · · · · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

· · · · · · · · · ·COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

· · · · HONORABLE CURTIS E.A. KARNOW, JUDGE PRESIDING

· · · · · · · · · · DEPARTMENT NUMBER 304

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ---oOo---

· 

· · ·COORDINATION PROCEEDING

· · ·SPECIAL TITLE [RULE 1550(b)]

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Case No.: CJC-17-004955

· · ·CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES

· · ·_______________________________/

· 

· 

· 

· 

· · · · · · ·Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings

· · · · · · · · · Thursday, October 25, 2018

· 

· 

· 

· · ·REPORTED BY:

· · ·MARY ANN SCANLAN, CSR NO. 8875 RMR-CRR-CCRR-CLR

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 2

of 70
·1· · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·3· · · · ABBEY, WEITZENBERG, WARREN & EMERY, PC

· · · · · 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 200

·4· · · · Santa Rosa, CA 95401

· · · · · 707.542.5050

·5· · · · BY:· BRENDAN M. KUNKLE, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·bkunkle@abbeylaw.com

·6

· · · · · MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

·7· · · · 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303

· · · · · San Francisco, California 94104

·8· · · · 415.433.4440

· · · · · BY:· MARY ALEXANDER, Attorney at Law

·9· · · · · · ·malexander@@maryalexanderlaw.com

· · · · · BY:· SOPHIA ACHERMANN, Attorney at Law

10· · · · · · ·sachermann@maryalexanderlaw.com

11· · · · ANDREWS THORNTON

· · · · · 2 Corporate Park, Suite 110

12· · · · Irvine, California 92606

· · · · · 949.748.1000

13· · · · BY:· SEAN T. HIGGINS, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·shiggins@andrewsthornton.com

14· · · · BY:· ROBERT S. SIKO, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·rsiko@andrewsthornton.com

15

· · · · · BAUMAN LOEWE WITT & MAXWELL

16· · · · 8765 E. Bell Road, Suite 204

· · · · · Scottsdale, AZ· 85260

17· · · · 480.502.4664

· · · · · BY:· A. SCOTT LOEWE, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

18· · · · · · ·sloewe@BLWMlawfirm.com

19· · · · BERGER KAHN

· · · · · 2 Park Plaza, Suite 650

20· · · · Irvine, California 92614-8516

· · · · · 949.474.1800

21· · · · BY:· CRAIG S. SIMON, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·csimon@bergerkahn.com

22

23

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 3

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

·3· ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·4· · · · BARON & BUDD, P.C.

· · · · · 603 N. Coast Highway Suite G

·5· · · · Solana Beach, California 92075

· · · · · 415.310.7523

·6· · · · BY:· BRITT STROTTMAN, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · bstrottman@baronbudd.com Attorney at Law

·7

· · · · · BARON & BUDD, P.C.

·8· · · · 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100

· · · · · Dallas, Texas 75219

·9· · · · 214.521.3605

· · · · · BY:· JOHN FISKE, Attorney at Law

10· · · · · · ·jfiske@baronbudd.com

11· · · · THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN E. CAINE

· · · · · 1221 Camino Del Mar

12· · · · Del Mar, California 92014

· · · · · 858.350.1660

13· · · · BY:· SHAWN E. CAINE, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·scaine@cainelaw.com

14

· · · · · COTCHETT, PITRE, SIMON & McCARTHY

15· · · · San Francisco Airport Office Center

· · · · · 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200

16· · · · Burlingame, California 94010

· · · · · BY:· FRANK M. PITRE, Attorney at Law

17· · · · · · ·fpitre@cpmlegal.com

· · · · · BY:· ALISON E. CORDONVA, Attorney at Law

18· · · · · · ·acordova@cpmlegal.com

19· · · · COZEN O'CONNER

· · · · · 101 Montgomery Stret, Suite 1400

20· · · · San Francisco, California 94104

· · · · · 415.593.9624

21· · · · BY:· FULTON M. SMITH III, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·fsmith@cozen.com

22

23

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 4

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

·3· ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·4· · · · COZEN O'CONNER

· · · · · 501 West Broadway, Suite 1610

·5· · · · San Diego, CA· 92101

· · · · · 619.685.1716

·6· · · · BY:· KEVIN D. BUSH, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·kbush@cozen.com

·7

· · · · · CUTTER LAW PC

·8· · · · 401 Watt Avenue, Suite 100

· · · · · Sacramento, California 95864

·9· · · · 916.290.4900

· · · · · BY:· MATTHEW M. BREINING, Attorney at Law

10· · · · · · ·(CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·mbreining@cutterlaw.com

11

· · · · · DANKO MEREDITH

12· · · · 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145

· · · · · Redwood City, California 94065

13· · · · 650.394.8672

· · · · · BY:· SHAWN R. MILLER, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

14· · · · · · ·smiller@dankolaw.com

15· · · · DIXON DIAB & CHAMBERS

· · · · · 501 W. Boradway, Suite 800

16· · · · San Diego, California 92101

· · · · · 619.354.2662

17· · · · BY:· ED DIAB, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·diab@theddcfirm.com

18

· · · · · DREYER, BABICH, BUCCOLA, WOOD CAMPORA LLP

19· · · · 20 Bicentennial Circle

· · · · · Sacramento, California 95826

20· · · · 916.379.3500

· · · · · BY:· STEVEN M. CAMPORA, Attorney at Law

21· · · · · · ·scampora@dbbwc.com

22

23

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 5

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

· · ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·3

· · · · · ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB & LACK

·4· · · · 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 16th Floor

· · · · · Los Angeles, California 90067-4107

·5· · · · 310.552.3800

· · · · · BY:· GREGROY P. WATERS, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

·6· · · · · · ·gwaters@elllaw.com

· · · · · BY:· ALEXANDRA J. NEWSOM, Attorney at Law

·7· · · · · · ·(CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·anewsom@elllaw.com

·8

· · · · · FOX LAW APC

·9· · · · The Plaza Building

· · · · · 225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102

10· · · · Solana Beach, California 92075

· · · · · BY:· JOANNA FOX, Attorney at Law

11· · · · · · ·Joanna@FoxLawAPC.com

12· · · · FRANTZ LAW GROUP

· · · · · 402 W Broadway, Suite 860

13· · · · San Diego, CA 92101

· · · · · 619.233.5945

14· · · · BY:· JAMES P. FRANTZ, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · · jpf@frantzlawgroup.com

15· · · · BY:· REGINA BAGDASARIAN, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·(CourtCall)

16· · · · · · ·rbagdasarian@frantzlawgroup.com

17· · · · GILBERT LLP

· · · · · One Market, Spear Tower, 36th Floor

18· · · · San Francisco, California 94105

· · · · · 415.656.4014

19· · · · BY:· PETER MERINGOLO, Attoreny at Law

· · · · · · · ·meringolop@gotofirm.com

20

· · · · · GOYETTE & ASSOCIATES

21· · · · 2366 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 200

· · · · · Gold River, California 95670-4471

22· · · · 916.851.1995

· · · · · BY:· GARY G. GOYETTE, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

23· · · · · · ·goyetteg@goyette-assoc.com

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 6

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

· · ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·3

· · · · · GROTEFELD HOFFMANN

·4· · · · 3718 SW Condor Avenue, Suite 100

· · · · · Portland, Oregon 97239

·5· · · · 503.384.2772

· · · · · BY:· WAYLON J. PICKET, Attorney at Law

·6· · · · · · ·wpickett@ghlaw-llp.com

·7· · · · GROTEFELD HOFFMANN LLP

· · · · · 700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 280

·8· · · · Larkspur, California 94939-1755

· · · · · 415.344.9670

·9· · · · BY:· MAURA WALSH OCHOA, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·mochoa@ghlaw-llp.com

10

· · · · · JACKSON & PARKINSON

11· · · · 205 West Alvarado Street, Suite 2

· · · · · Fallbrook, California 92028

12· · · · 760.723.1295

· · · · · BY:· ROBERT JACKSON, Attorney at Law

13· · · · · · ·robert@jacksontriallawyers.com

14· · · · LAW OFFICES OF JANG & ASSOCIATES, LLP

· · · · · 1766 Lacassie Avenue, Suite 200

15· · · · Walnut Creek, California 94596

· · · · · 925.937.1400

16· · · · BY:· ALAN J. JANG, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·ajang@janglit.com

17· · · · BY:· STEPHANIE YEE, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·syee@janglit.com

18· · · · BY:· SALLY NOMA, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·snoma@janglit.com

19

· · · · · LEVINS SIMES

20· · · · 44 Montgomery Street, 32nd Floor

· · · · · San Francisco, California 94104

21· · · · 415.426.3000

· · · · · BY:· AMY ESKIN, Attorney at Law

22· · · · · · ·aeskin@levinsimes.com

23

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 7

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

·3· ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·4· · · · LIEFF CABRASER & HEIMANN

· · · · · 275 Battery Street, Suite 3000

·5· · · · San Francisco, California 94111

· · · · · 415.956.1000

·6· · · · BY:· LEXI J. HAZAM, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·lhazam@lchb.com

·7· · · · BY:· ABBY R. WOLF, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·awolf@lchb.com

·8

· · · · · MATIASIC & JOHNSON, LLP

·9· · · · 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3850

· · · · · San Francisco, California 94104

10· · · · 415.675.1089

· · · · · BY:· KELSEY F. MORRIS, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

11· · · · · · ·Morris@mjlawoffice.com

12· · · · MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS, LLP

· · · · · 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400

13· · · · Los Angeles, California 90024

· · · · · 310.474.1582 8

14· · · · BY:· JUSTIN J. EBALLAR, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·jje@mcnicholaslaw.com

15

· · · · · RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP

16· · · · 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300

· · · · · San Francisco, California 94104

17· · · · 415.848.7200

· · · · · BY:· LORI S. LIU, Attorney at Law

18· · · · · · ·lliu@publiclawgroup.com

19· · · · ROBINS CLOUD

· · · · · 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450

20· · · · Santa Monica, California 90401

· · · · · 310.929.4200

21· · · · BY:· BILL ROBINS III, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·robins@robinscloud.com

22· · · · BY:· ROBERT BRYSON, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·rbryson@robinscloud.com

23· · · · BY:· KEVIN M. POLOLACK, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·kpollack@robinscloud.com

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 8

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

·3· ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·4· · · · LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK, A.P.C.

· · · · · 16870 West Bernardo Drive, #400

·5· · · · San Diego, California 92127

· · · · · 858.485.6535

·6· · · · BY:· SHANNON F. NOCON, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·shannonnocon@amslawoffice.com

·7

· · · · · SCHROEDER LOSCOTOFF LLP

·8· · · · 7410 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 200

· · · · · Sacramento, California 95831

·9· · · · 916.438.8300

· · · · · BY:· ERIC M. SCHROEDER, Attorney at Law

10· · · · · · ·emschroeder@calsubro.com

11· · · · SIEGLOCK LAW

· · · · · 1221 Camino Del Mar

12· · · · Del Mar, California 92014

· · · · · 858.793.0380

13· · · · BY:· CHRISTOPHER SIEGLOCK, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·chris@sieglocklaw.com

14

· · · · · SINGLETON LAW FIRM

15· · · · 115 W. Plaza Street

· · · · · Solana Beach, California 92075

16· · · · 760.697.1330

· · · · · BY:· GERALD SINGLETON, Attorney at Law

17· · · · · · ·gerald@slffirm.com

18· · · · TERRY SINGLETON, APC

· · · · · 1950 5th Avenue, Suite 200

19· · · · san Diego, California 92101-2344

· · · · · 619.239.3225

20· · · · BY:· TERRY SINGLETON, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

21· · · · SKIKOS CRAWFORD SKIKOS JOSEPH & MILLICAN

· · · · · 625 Market Street, 11th Floor

22· · · · San Francisco, California 94105

· · · · · 415.546.7300

23· · · · BY:· STEVEN J. SKIKOS, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·sskikos@skikos.com

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 9

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

·3· ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·4· · · · LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN

· · · · · 1206 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 306

·5· · · · Corona, California 92879

· · · · · 951.387.4700

·6· · · · BY:· TIMOTHY E. CARY, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·CaryT@StutmanLaw.com

·7

· · · · · SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLP

·8· · · · 140 Broadway, 47th Floor

· · · · · New York, NY 10005

·9· · · · 212.514.4705

· · · · · BY:· DAVID S. GREENBERG, Interested Party

10· · · · · · ·(CourtCall)

11· · · · THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C.

· · · · · 700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160

12· · · · Burlingame, California 84010-1931

· · · · · 650.513.6111

13· · · · BY:· ROBERT W. THOMPSON, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·(CourtCall)

14· · · · · · ·bobby@tlopc.com

15· · · · THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE

· · · · · 2550 Fifth Avenue, Eleventh Floor

16· · · · San Diego, California 92103

· · · · · 619.236.9363

17· · · · BY:· JOHN F. McGUIRE, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

· · · · · · · ·mcguire@tbmlawyers.com

18

· · · · · TOSDAL LAW FIRM

19· · · · 777 S. Highway 101, Suite 215

· · · · · Solano Beach, California 92075

20· · · · 858.704.4710

· · · · · BY:· THOMAS TOSDAL, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

21· · · · · · ·tom@tosdallaw.com

22

23

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 10

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

·3· ·FOR PLAINTIFFS:

·4· · · · WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER

· · · · · 650 California Street, 26th Floor

·5· · · · San Francisco, California 94108

· · · · · 415.981.7210

·6· · · · BY:· MICHAEL A. KELLY, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·MKelly@WalkupLawOffice.com

·7· · · · BY:· MAX SCHUVER, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·mschuver@walkuplawoffice.com

·8· · · · BY:· ANDREW MCDEVITT, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·amcdevit@walkuplawoffice.com

·9

· · · · · WATTS GUERRA

10· · · · 811 Barton Springs Road, Suite 725

· · · · · Austin, Texas 78704

11· · · · 512.479.0500

· · · · · BY:· GUY L. WATTS, Attorney at Law (CourtCall)

12· · · · · · ·gwatts@wattsguerra.com

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25· · · · ·(APPEARANCES CONTINUED FOLLOWING PAGE:)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 11

of 70
·1· · · · A P P E A R A N C E S· O F· C O U N S E L:

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·(CONTINUED)

·3· ·FOR DEFENDANT PG&E:

·4· · · · CLARENCE DYER & COHEN LLP

· · · · · 899 Ellis Street

·5· · · · San Francisco, California 94109

· · · · · 415.749.1800

·6· · · · BY:· KATE DYER, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·kdyer@clarencedyer.com

·7

· · · · · CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE

·8· · · · Worldwide Plaza

· · · · · 825 Eighth Avenue

·9· · · · New York, New York 10019

· · · · · BY:· KEVIN J. ORSINI, Attorney at Law

10· · · · · · ·korsini@cravathcom

· · · · · BY:· EVAN R. CHESLER, Attorney at Law

11· · · · · · ·echesler@cravath.com

12· · · · WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI

· · · · · 650 Page Mill Road

13· · · · Palo Alto, CA· 94304-1050

· · · · · 650.320.4893

14· · · · BY:· KEITH E. EGGLETON, Attorney at Law

· · · · · · · ·keggleton@wsgr.com

15

16· · · · · · · · · · · · ---oOo---

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 12

of 70
·1· · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S

·2· · · · ·Thursday | October 25, 2018 | 9:16 a.m.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ---oOo---

·4· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Good morning.

·5· · · · · · ·I'm going to go through the topics that I plan

·6· ·to talk about and then I'll start each topic with some

·7· ·questions and comments so that the attorneys in the room

·8· ·can push back and correct me or steer me on those

·9· ·matters.· And when we finish our comments on that topic,

10· ·then we'll move on to the next topic.

11· · · · · · ·I'd appreciate a copy, even a rough

12· ·transcript, of today's hearing.· I think it will be

13· ·helpful, so if somebody can get that to me in the next

14· ·couple of days or by early next week, that will help me

15· ·with a case management order to resolve a lot of the

16· ·issues that we have to talk about today.

17· · · · · · ·Because we got started a little late, I'll ask

18· ·people to not speak quickly but perhaps with fewer

19· ·words.

20· · · · · · ·With respect to the number of trials, I'm a

21· ·little concerned that we're not focusing on the overall

22· ·number of trials that might be implicated.

23· · · · · · ·Obviously, after we have some of the

24· ·bellwether cases, there's a thought that mediation will

25· ·kick in and perhaps we'll get some resolution; but we

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 13

of 70
·1· ·can't put a hundred percent of our bet on that approach.

·2· · · · · · ·If there are 15 or 19 fires and if the results

·3· ·from one won't have much effect on the other -- and some

·4· ·of the individual plaintiffs have suggested as much,

·5· ·because of different ignition sources and therefore

·6· ·different ways in which liability is likely to be

·7· ·resolved, then simply having the Tubbs fire first or

·8· ·simply having the Atlas fire first may not push us along

·9· ·toward the other cases and getting those resolved.

10· · · · · · ·But if we do them 60 days or half a year, one

11· ·after the next, it will be many, many years before these

12· ·cases get resolved, which doesn't work.

13· · · · · · ·So the current thought from some of the

14· ·plaintiffs -- many of the plaintiffs and I think -- is

15· ·that we would have, for example, maybe Tubbs set 60 days

16· ·after the Atlas fires.

17· · · · · · ·But when you work that out for all of the

18· ·fires involved, we're still many, many years down the

19· ·road, so I'm concerned about that.

20· · · · · · ·Before we talk about which particular trial to

21· ·have first, I'd just like to open up comments with

22· ·respect to that, whether we should be planning Tubbs or

23· ·Atlas first and then Atlas or Tubbs next, wait 60 days,

24· ·wait 90 days, have the next trial, or whether we should

25· ·really be setting more cases at this point -- a lot of

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 14

of 70
·1· ·cases.

·2· · · · · · ·Obviously, that will put a tremendous burden

·3· ·on the parties to go -- to essentially be preparing for

·4· ·two, three, four, five trials at the same time.

·5· · · · · · ·And we're not going to resolve this particular

·6· ·issue today, but I think we want to get started thinking

·7· ·about what's the long-term plan here.· We haven't

·8· ·thought about this particular issue before, so let me

·9· ·just stop there and invite comment.

10· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· So, Your Honor, first of all, I

11· ·think that we agree with the Court that you can't have

12· ·trials going on forever.

13· · · · · · ·We addressed this in response to the questions

14· ·that were posed, which is which should go first, what

15· ·should it look like, how long would it take?

16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Absolutely.

17· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· I think, just so you know, with as

18· ·few words as possible, we are continuing to do discovery

19· ·on all of the fires and are certainly willing to come

20· ·back and talk about what's the most efficient way if

21· ·that's what moves the needle to further explore with you

22· ·how many, where, and at what intervals.

23· · · · · · ·We're not wedded to this as the only way to go

24· ·forward.

25· · · · · · ·I will say that the CMC that we prepared and

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 15

of 70
·1· ·submitted essentially had the universal agreement of all

·2· ·the leads in response to your question, and I guess the

·3· ·short answer is, it's a fair question, it's a good

·4· ·question.· Does a trial or multiple trials move the

·5· ·needle or do we need to do five, six, or eight?· I think

·6· ·that's something we need to come back and talk to you

·7· ·about.

·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· All right.· Thank you.

·9· · · · · · ·MR. SIMON:· Your Honor, I think that with

10· ·regard to the plaintiffs' request that Atlas go first, I

11· ·believe that it would move the needle for other trials

12· ·because of the vegetation-related issues.

13· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· Good morning, Your Honor, Kevin

14· ·Orsini.· I already speak too quickly, so I'll just use

15· ·few words.

16· · · · · · ·I think Your Honor's concern is exactly the

17· ·right one.· How do we get to this point where we're not

18· ·trying these cases for the next decade?· I think we may

19· ·very well get to a point where we have to slot a number

20· ·of trials for a number of different fires, either

21· ·concurrently or consecutively with less than a 60-day

22· ·gap, but I think the question goes back to why we

23· ·believe you have to set Tubbs first.

24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Right.· I'll be getting to that.

25· ·That's a separate issue.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 16

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·But maybe the approach is going to be to set

·2· ·one first, whichever one that is.

·3· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· If I may, Your Honor, just to

·4· ·expand on that a little bit, the reason why I don't

·5· ·think they're completely separate, at least from our

·6· ·perspective, which is -- you know, from PG&E's

·7· ·perspective about how could we resolve this, because we

·8· ·don't want these cases hanging around for the next ten

·9· ·years either, just as much as the individual plaintiffs

10· ·who are victims don't.

11· · · · · · ·And from our perspective, as we're looking at

12· ·how we can size how this ought to be resolved, trying

13· ·Tubbs first doesn't guarantee that we don't have to have

14· ·all of those other trials, but it's the best chance that

15· ·we don't have to have all those other trials.

16· · · · · · ·Because when I sit with my client and we talk

17· ·about what resolutions could look like, when you're

18· ·staring down the barrel of one fire that's two-thirds of

19· ·the potential liabilities, that one has the highest

20· ·probability of getting all the others tied up in a

21· ·global resolution.

22· · · · · · ·That's why I don't think they're unrelated.

23· · · · · · ·And I think we could, for example, take an

24· ·approach where we set the Tubbs trial first for

25· ·precisely that reason, and then we figure out how to set

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 17

of 70
·1· ·a number of additional trials shortly thereafter so that

·2· ·we have a mechanism where, if I'm wrong and trying Tubbs

·3· ·doesn't get us all to the point where we can get this

·4· ·wrapped up without more trials, we have the schedule in

·5· ·place to move right to those trials.

·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.

·7· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Your Honor, may I offer a

·8· ·different perspective?

·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· If you keep your voice way up,

10· ·yes, you can.

11· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Gerald Singleton.

12· · · · · · ·I apologize, Your Honor, I had a flight issue

13· ·so we were delayed.

14· · · · · · ·I think the Court is absolutely right when it

15· ·suggests that it would be beneficial to set numerous

16· ·trials.· We propose, as the Court is aware, Sulphur

17· ·going in March or April to be followed by the four Wind

18· ·Complex fires.

19· · · · · · ·Although it would be aggressive, we have

20· ·circulated to both plaintiffs' counsel and defense

21· ·counsel a proposed trial plan that would try all of

22· ·these cases next year.

23· · · · · · ·I understand this is not something that the

24· ·Court is going to decide today nor should it, but I

25· ·think that looking at some of the other issues,

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 18

of 70
·1· ·particularly the fact that you have people, real world

·2· ·issues, such as ALE benefits running out after two

·3· ·years, the proper way to resolve these cases is to set

·4· ·them for trial once the liability is ready to go on each

·5· ·one.· And if we do that, we believe we could get most if

·6· ·not all of them, tried in 2019.

·7· · · · · · ·Obviously, it would be burdensome, but there

·8· ·are a lot of fine lawyers on both sides, and we

·9· ·certainly believe we could do that.

10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Did you author the response to

11· ·certain individual plaintiffs to the joint case

12· ·management conference statement -- you were involved in

13· ·that?

14· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Yes, Your Honor.

15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· How come I didn't get a single CMC

16· ·statement?· Do you know what happened?

17· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Yes, Your Honor.

18· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Were you not consulted?

19· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· No, Your Honor.· What happened

20· ·is we met and conferred extensively, but there is a

21· ·fundamental difference of opinion between the four firms

22· ·in our group and the plaintiffs' leadership.

23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Is it possible to get your

24· ·comments into a single document next time?

25· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· We certainly can, Your Honor.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 19

of 70
·1· ·We were not afforded the opportunity to add it to that,

·2· ·but we certainly can if that's what the Court would

·3· ·prefer.

·4· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'd prefer it.

·5· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Very well.

·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you, very much.

·7· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Thank you.

·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· My guess is that what we're going

·9· ·to do is set a single trial first, one of these cases.

10· ·We're going to turn to that matter in about one minute.

11· · · · · · ·And after we have set that trial but before it

12· ·starts, at a future CMC, we're going to talk about this

13· ·issue of what happens after that.· I want to have a

14· ·long-term plan.· We're not going to wait until that

15· ·first trial has started.

16· · · · · · ·We're going to have a long-term plan before

17· ·that, whether it's something that the Singleton firm has

18· ·suggested or some other approach, but I think we want to

19· ·have an idea of what's coming down the road so that PG&E

20· ·understands what it's facing and so the lawyers who are

21· ·involved in this case can have a say in how their

22· ·energies are going to be spent over the next couple of

23· ·years and really what's feasible and what's not

24· ·physically feasible.

25· · · · · · ·Let me turn to the next topic, which is which

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 20

of 70
·1· ·trial to go first.· Let me make some summary comments.

·2· · · · · · ·The Sulphur trial has been proposed.· Some of

·3· ·the individual plaintiffs suggest this, but they didn't

·4· ·provide enough information for me to do very much with

·5· ·that today.· They don't provide a rough number of

·6· ·witnesses available, what their areas of testimony are

·7· ·going to be.· I don't think they suggested how long the

·8· ·trial is going to be.

·9· · · · · · ·I wonder if it's true, if some people agree

10· ·that this is in fact the simplest case, at least between

11· ·Sulphur, Atlas, and Tubbs.· Comments on that are

12· ·solicited.

13· · · · · · ·They have indicated -- the folks that proffer

14· ·the Sulphur trial, that it involves a lot of people. I

15· ·think that's probably true with Tubbs and Atlas as well.

16· · · · · · ·They have suggested that they think that the

17· ·discovery cutoff should be pursuant to code.· It doesn't

18· ·sound like the way to go.· If there are only a couple of

19· ·expert witnesses, then perhaps that could be fit in

20· ·pursuant to code, but probably not otherwise.

21· · · · · · ·The next proposal is the Atlas case. I

22· ·wonder, is it true that there's a general agreement that

23· ·this is a tree line contact case, that there is the

24· ·single point of ignition?· There may be obviously

25· ·disagreements as to who's responsible for that.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 21

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·I wonder, can we say that there are, in fact,

·2· ·common ignition sources or source in the Tubbs fire and

·3· ·in the Atlas fire?

·4· · · · · · ·I think in the Tubbs fire, the consensus

·5· ·probably is that there is not a single ignition source.

·6· · · · · · ·In Atlas, I wonder if there is or not.

·7· · · · · · ·My concern is, particularly with respect to

·8· ·the Tubbs fire, that we might have ultimate liability as

·9· ·to some of the plaintiffs and not as to others, because

10· ·we have different ignition sources and it will devolve

11· ·into a dispute as to really how many fires we have.

12· · · · · · ·So my question there, in summary, is how much

13· ·of a consensus is there that we have identified ignition

14· ·points for these two candidate fires, Tubbs and Atlas?

15· · · · · · ·Turning to the Tubbs fire -- this is PG&E's

16· ·suggestion -- it's noted, I think without dispute, that

17· ·it's the most extensive fire, it's likely to resolve the

18· ·most cases.· PG&E has suggested that about two-thirds of

19· ·the liability it faces could be involved in the Tubbs

20· ·fire.

21· · · · · · ·This makes it an appealing fire to take first

22· ·because it will resolve most of the cases or at least

23· ·indicate possible resolution to most of the cases.

24· · · · · · ·But there's also a suggestion that this has

25· ·the most complex causation issues associated with it.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 22

of 70
·1· ·If that is true, how is it possible that PG&E is right

·2· ·that it will actually be a shorter trial than Atlas?

·3· · · · · · ·I think we generally recognize that this will

·4· ·be a battle of experts and there probably will be a lot

·5· ·more experts in Tubbs than Atlas, but I throw that out

·6· ·so that you'll correct me if I'm wrong about that.

·7· · · · · · ·Do the plaintiffs agree with PG&E that in a

·8· ·Tubbs fire trial they would not have the vegetation

·9· ·management-related witnesses that they want in the Atlas

10· ·fire?· PG&E has suggested that only half of the time

11· ·needed would be applicable.

12· · · · · · ·With respect to Atlas or Tubbs or the Sulphur

13· ·fire, is it true that we would probably have exactly the

14· ·same issues and potential delay associated with

15· ·accessing the evidence in the hands of Cal fire, or do

16· ·we have a different picture for those three fires?

17· · · · · · ·For these three fires, Atlas, Tubbs, or

18· ·Sulphur, to what extent do the plaintiffs need the

19· ·completion of all of PG&E's corporate discovery for all

20· ·of these trials?

21· · · · · · ·Isn't it the same thing, don't we need to do

22· ·exactly the same work on that front, getting that

23· ·corporate discovery done, regardless of what fire we

24· ·take?

25· · · · · · ·And just to drop a footnote here, perhaps the

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 23

of 70
·1· ·parties need to set a deadline for the completion of

·2· ·this discovery from PG&E.· There's a lot of discussion

·3· ·in the joint case management statement indicating some

·4· ·concern about PG&E's discovery.

·5· · · · · · ·If the parties cannot set a deadline, maybe

·6· ·they want me to resolve that issue if they are unable to

·7· ·set a deadline for the completion of that discovery.

·8· · · · · · ·The plaintiffs have suggested with respect to

·9· ·this discovery -- this applies to all three of these

10· ·candidate fires, Atlas, Tubbs, or Sulphur -- that they

11· ·don't want to set a fact discovery cutoff date.· They

12· ·say that on page 22 of their statement.· I find this a

13· ·little odd.

14· · · · · · ·If we're going to set a trial date, don't we

15· ·need to set a discovery cutoff date?

16· · · · · · ·Let me stop there.· The general topic now is

17· ·which fire:· Sulphur, Atlas, or Tubbs?

18· · · · · · ·And I'm interested in people's views to the

19· ·extent they haven't been reflected in my --

20· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· So, Your Honor, Michael Kelly. I

21· ·hope I got all the questions.

22· · · · · · ·Let me start with these three fires.· The

23· ·leadership appointed in CMO1 went through these

24· ·questions relative to what should be first.

25· · · · · · ·Let me say about Sulphur, it is a pole failure

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 24

of 70
·1· ·case; whereas everything else is power line, tree line,

·2· ·or multiple causes of failure.· It has no deaths.· It

·3· ·has a minimum number of structures, 162.· For a host of

·4· ·reasons it was determined by the larger group, including

·5· ·subrogation and the public entities, that it was not

·6· ·going to be helpful in moving the litigation forward

·7· ·toward resolution.

·8· · · · · · ·Let me talk about Atlas for a minute.· There

·9· ·is no question that the Atlas fire is a tree contact or

10· ·branch contact fire.· It is pleaded in our long form

11· ·complaint.· PG&E reported both a branch failure line

12· ·contact tree collapse into the same line to the PUC; and

13· ·Cal Fire reported two locations of origin that are both

14· ·tree contact issues.

15· · · · · · ·So while that doesn't prove liability, it does

16· ·prove or suggest that there's an easy way to prove

17· ·causation.

18· · · · · · ·The notion of the Tubbs fire really being the

19· ·suitable case to try first is undermined by the various

20· ·arguments in the CMC statement, which I'm sure the Court

21· ·read carefully of he says, she says, she says, he says

22· ·about what happened, how many points of origin.· And the

23· ·fundamental problem there is it's going to take multiple

24· ·experts who can't get to the evidence.

25· · · · · · ·As we've noted late in the CMC statement, we

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 25

of 70
·1· ·have worked really hard with the DA's to get an

·2· ·agreement on access to evidence.

·3· · · · · · ·And Ms. Cordova can talk more about it, but

·4· ·the Tubbs report is not out.· The Tubbs report is not on

·5· ·the table for getting access to Cal Fire evidence

·6· ·because we're dealing with DA's; it hasn't been referred

·7· ·out, it hasn't been finished.· There are multiple

·8· ·experts to look at it.

·9· · · · · · ·It's inconceivable to me that it is tried in a

10· ·shorter period of time or involves less experts or it

11· ·is, as suggested by the defendants, it's some kind of an

12· ·on/off switch.· It's either at these old folks' home or

13· ·somewhere else.

14· · · · · · ·The truth of the matter is if the total number

15· ·of points of origin is not clear, in part because we

16· ·haven't seen all of the physical evidence -- there are

17· ·multiple experts looking at it -- there's no reason to

18· ·believe that actually the point of origin is as

19· ·suggested by PG&E.

20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You don't have the same discovery

21· ·and Cal Fire issues with Atlas?

22· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· We don't, because the Atlas report

23· ·is done.

24· · · · · · ·And let me -- actually, we'll get ahead of

25· ·ourselves, but I think it would be helpful to the Court.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 26

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·Here's the status of that.· For fires not

·2· ·referred to district attorneys, LaPort, Honey, Redwood,

·3· ·Cherokee, 37, and Nuns, we have an agreement to get both

·4· ·reports and access to the evidence with the DA's.

·5· · · · · · ·MS. CORDOVA:· With Cal Fire.

·6· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· With Cal Fire, excuse me.

·7· · · · · · ·And we're working with the district attorneys.

·8· · · · · · ·Cal Fire's position is you get an agreement

·9· ·from the DA's.· Cal Fire and the district attorneys have

10· ·agreed to evidence inspections -- the DA's in Sonoma,

11· ·Butte, Yuba, and Nevada counties, and we're working with

12· ·the other DA's.· We just haven't gotten confirmation for

13· ·access to the evidence.

14· · · · · · ·These are all cases where the report is

15· ·finished.· We are waiting to hear from Napa County

16· ·district attorney relative to the Atlas fire.

17· · · · · · ·But as for the Tubbs fire, the report is not

18· ·finished.· A decision about referral or non-referral

19· ·hasn't been made.· It's not even on the table in terms

20· ·of negotiating with Cal Fire and the district attorney

21· ·to get access to the evidence.

22· · · · · · ·And I think one of the things the Court -- I'm

23· ·sorry to be presumptuous, but the notion --

24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Go ahead.

25· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· -- that you want a discovery

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 27

of 70
·1· ·cutoff is to get things finished or moving, we can't

·2· ·even begin to get things finished until we get to that

·3· ·Tubbs evidence.

·4· · · · · · ·So as a practical matter, whatever the

·5· ·feelings of the defendant are about how much it might

·6· ·move a needle -- and I'm using might in italics -- it's

·7· ·really something we don't know.· It's a moving target.

·8· ·We don't know when the -- I've heard on seven different

·9· ·occasions the Tubbs report is coming out this week.· And

10· ·those are seven different weeks over the past five

11· ·months.· And I don't think anybody knows that.

12· · · · · · ·So one of the things I think the Court wants

13· ·is certainty.· We want certainty.· So for us, you know,

14· ·the one thing about the Atlas fire, is it going to move

15· ·the needle?· Well, it's going to move it to the extent

16· ·that there are wrongful deaths involved, there are more

17· ·than 50,000 acres, there are more than 700 structures,

18· ·we do know it's a tree line contact.· We know some

19· ·things that make it capable of assessing and analyzing

20· ·and getting the experts on.

21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.

22· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· And if I might, I was responsible

23· ·for drafting what apparently was an inarticulate CMC

24· ·statement on our side.

25· · · · · · ·We don't suggest that you should never set a

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 28

of 70
·1· ·general discovery cutoff.· We proposed, referencing this

·2· ·fire, a discovery cutoff for the fire that is set.· It

·3· ·was intended to make clear that the discovery cutoff we

·4· ·proposed and the modification as to the expert discovery

·5· ·was peculiar to this fire that's set and said as far as

·6· ·a generic cutoff, we still can't even get ESI.

·7· · · · · · ·If the Court will recall, we were supposed to

·8· ·get it on December 21st.· This statement now skips the

·9· ·month of January and says we will get it in February and

10· ·proposes discovery cutoff two weeks later.

11· · · · · · ·So we're not adverse, but it's not --

12· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Your suggestion is set a discovery

13· ·cutoff per trial?

14· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· Yes.· That is my point.

15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· What do you think about a

16· ·discovery cutoff for getting evidence which is going to

17· ·be common to all of the cases, I think, which is the

18· ·corporate discovery from PG&E?

19· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· I agree that the corporate

20· ·behavior discovery is common.· The same company is

21· ·operating in response -- at least in our opinion,

22· ·responsible for all the fires.

23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· We need to set a single deadline

24· ·for that, right, at some point?

25· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· We do, but I would suggest to the

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 29

of 70
·1· ·Court that it would be nice to have the

·2· ·electronically-stored information in our hands to review

·3· ·for a period of more than two weeks before we can come

·4· ·and chat about what's fair to everybody.

·5· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.

·6· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· What have I missed?

·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Not too much.

·8· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· Okay.

·9· · · · · · ·So I was always a B student.· I feel that

10· ·having not missed too much, I'm hoping I'm not below a

11· ·B-minus.· If there is a major point I missed, I would

12· ·like to address it.

13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I don't think so.· Thank you very

14· ·much.

15· · · · · · ·Let me give the rest of the plaintiffs a

16· ·chance to talk, then I will turn to PG&E.

17· · · · · · ·MR. SIMON:· Your Honor, Craig Simon for

18· ·subrogation plaintiffs.· We agree with everything that

19· ·Mr. Kelly said.

20· · · · · · ·I want to answer specifically some of your

21· ·questions.

22· · · · · · ·With Atlas, is there general agreement on

23· ·ignition?· I believe so.· To reiterate what Mr. Kelly

24· ·said, you have two admitted ignition places in Atlas.

25· ·In one you have a significant tree branch that contacted

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 30

of 70
·1· ·the line.· It was reported by PG&E as a tree branch, so

·2· ·they saw it and looked at it and reported it that way.

·3· · · · · · ·The second ignition is a whole tree down.

·4· ·PG&E reported it that way and, therefore, I believe that

·5· ·it is, by far, a much simpler case than Tubbs.

·6· · · · · · ·I do want to say, with regard to Tubbs, in

·7· ·previous hearings, I might have suggested to the Court

·8· ·that it was an electrical fire only that did not involve

·9· ·vegetation.· We've had some discovery since the last

10· ·hearing that has come out which implicates a need for

11· ·additional evidence collection, that is, that we know

12· ·there was an electrical event at a particular location.

13· ·The cause of that electrical event is still under

14· ·review.

15· · · · · · ·It could be on the Calistoga line at other

16· ·places things that are occurring, and one of those

17· ·things may be vegetation-related.· We've had some

18· ·eyewitnesses and some issues that have come up.

19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Do you think there's a consensus

20· ·that that is the ignition point for the Tubbs fire,

21· ·whatever the cause is?

22· · · · · · ·MR. SIMON:· No, Your Honor.· I believe that

23· ·this is extremely complicated and there's no answer.

24· · · · · · ·And I agree with Mr. Kelly that the back and

25· ·forth in the brief -- I think the point that I'm trying

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 31

of 70
·1· ·to emphasize for the Court is Tubbs is the most complex

·2· ·fire that is delayed in any type of discovery by the

·3· ·fact the evidence is tied up and it's different than

·4· ·Atlas.

·5· · · · · · ·You asked specifically, isn't access to the

·6· ·evidence, is it the same or different?· That was a

·7· ·question that you asked -- don't you have the same

·8· ·problem with the Cal Fire?· No, it's completely

·9· ·different.

10· · · · · · ·In the Tubbs there is no report or final

11· ·conclusion, and PG&E affirmatively went out and extended

12· ·the time for Cal Fire to make a report.

13· · · · · · ·So by PG&E's volitional efforts, they have

14· ·delayed or allowed a delay in the Tubbs report.· I'm not

15· ·blaming them.· I'm just saying it as a fact that we

16· ·don't have a report and, therefore, the chance of

17· ·getting the same type of evidence with regard to Atlas

18· ·is completely different.

19· · · · · · ·We believe we're going to be able to get to

20· ·the -- what we need to see is the conductor in Atlas,

21· ·and we have certain other outage reports, so it's

22· ·completely between Tubbs and Atlas with regard to that.

23· · · · · · ·Mr. Kelly dealt with a deadline of discovery.

24· ·We, of course, want a deadline if we're in a trial, but

25· ·we don't want a deadline for the other fires.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 32

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·And you asked specifically if Sulphur was the

·2· ·simplest case.· In a way it is the simplest case and

·3· ·that's part of the reason why we were saying that it

·4· ·could be used after the first trial if we can't get to

·5· ·Tubbs.· In other words, we may be in a situation where

·6· ·four months from now we still don't have a Tubbs report,

·7· ·and we would need to have another fire go forward and we

·8· ·said in the brief that maybe that other fire would be

·9· ·Sulphur.

10· · · · · · ·Your Honor, subrogation completely supports

11· ·what Mr. Kelly said and the individual plaintiffs.

12· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.

13· · · · · · ·Are there other plaintiffs who have a

14· ·completely different view as to what I've been hearing?

15· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Thank you, Your Honor.

16· · · · · · ·I would concur with what Mr. Kelly and

17· ·Mr. Simon said in terms of how the trial how the

18· ·discovery cutoff should work.· I think it should be per

19· ·trial.· Discovery should go forward on the others.

20· · · · · · ·Following up with what Mr. Simon said, I think

21· ·all parties agree that Sulphur is the simplest.· It is a

22· ·pole that snapped.· There are no vegetation management

23· ·issues.· There do not appear to be the same issues that

24· ·arise when you have a line slap, which can create

25· ·separate issues.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 33

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·So in terms of simple, I do believe there is

·2· ·large consensus it is the simplest.

·3· · · · · · ·I wanted to address two points that the Court

·4· ·raised.· Number one, do we need the ESI to try Sulphur?

·5· ·Certainly we would like it.· In a perfect world we would

·6· ·have that, but I think there's a difference between what

·7· ·you need and what you would like when you're going to

·8· ·trial.

·9· · · · · · ·In terms of Sulphur, we believe that once

10· ·we're allowed to actually inspect the evidence so we can

11· ·confirm what our experts have posited and what they've

12· ·theorized, we will be largely ready to go.· There will

13· ·be a handful of other depositions that will need to be

14· ·taken, but this is going to be a much more streamlined

15· ·straightforward case.· We estimated it would take 13 to

16· ·17 court days to try, and that's assuming that there

17· ·were five to ten cases involved.· If the Court wanted to

18· ·strip that down, we could cut that back even further.

19· · · · · · ·But the timeline that we've suggested also

20· ·addresses one issue I haven't heard yet today and that

21· ·is that of the preference cases.· We have,

22· ·unfortunately, at least eight individuals in Sulphur who

23· ·we believe will qualify for preference under section

24· ·36(a); and this is not something we take lightly, but

25· ·these are individuals who are over the age of 70 who are

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 34

of 70
·1· ·very ill and for whom we will need to file those motions

·2· ·relatively soon.· That was why we had suggested the

·3· ·March/April trial date, because we think that would

·4· ·coincide with when these cases will be ready.

·5· · · · · · ·The last issue I wanted to address was

·6· ·something that Mr. Kelly said about Sulphur not moving

·7· ·settlement forward, and I think that depends on what the

·8· ·settlement in this case is going to look like.

·9· · · · · · ·Obviously, PG&E has said and they've been

10· ·consistent throughout that they want a global settlement

11· ·that involves all fires.· Having represented, I believe,

12· ·more individuals in fire cases than anyone else in

13· ·California, and certainly having been involved in many

14· ·major fires over the last few years, I have not seen

15· ·that happen in a multiple-fire case.

16· · · · · · ·There's many reasons for that.· One is the

17· ·fact that the liability is very different.· For example,

18· ·in the 2007 San Diego fires, there were three separate

19· ·fires, all of which were very large.· I think the

20· ·smallest was about 40,000 acres.

21· · · · · · ·But we had over a year where we were settling

22· ·cases in two of them, but the third one was not settling

23· ·because there were issues related to liability.

24· · · · · · ·I can see the same thing arising here.· You

25· ·have a case like Sulphur where -- again, obviously this

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 35

of 70
·1· ·is our position and PG&E may differ, but it's a fairly

·2· ·straightforward case.

·3· · · · · · ·You have a case like Tubbs, where I think all

·4· ·parties agree that's going to be a complicated case, and

·5· ·certainly there are going to be differences in terms of

·6· ·the strength of liability.

·7· · · · · · ·So I would simply say that I don't see this

·8· ·case, at least at this point, as being able to be

·9· ·resolved on a global order anytime soon.

10· · · · · · ·I think what makes the most sense is to treat

11· ·these the way that I believe Mr. Orsini and Mr. Kelly

12· ·have both commented on.· These are not one size fits

13· ·all.· It's not one case.· It's 16, 17, 19 -- it depends

14· ·on how you quantify the fires.· There can be a little

15· ·bit of difference of opinion, but there's certainly at

16· ·least 16 major fires here, and I believe they have to be

17· ·approached on an individual basis, and that's why it

18· ·makes so much sense to set them as they are ready to

19· ·try.

20· · · · · · ·When you have a case like Sulphur that is the

21· ·simplest, I would submit it makes very little sense to

22· ·put it behind a much more complicated -- a super trial,

23· ·if you will, with an Atlas or a Tubbs.

24· · · · · · ·If Sulphur can be ready to be tried in March

25· ·or April, why not try it?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 36

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·The same is true of the Wind Complex fires.

·2· ·Those are the Lobo, McCourtney, Cascade, and LaPort.· We

·3· ·have the reports in two, and my understanding is there

·4· ·have been agreements with the Nevada County District

·5· ·Attorney where these occurred to go ahead and inspect in

·6· ·Lobo and McCourtney.

·7· · · · · · ·I'm the discovery coordinator for the

·8· ·plaintiffs in the Lobo and McCourtney fires, and based

·9· ·upon what I've seen, there's no doubt in my mind we can

10· ·be ready to go in those fires by May or so.

11· · · · · · ·So to me, what makes the most sense is you set

12· ·these when they're ready.· If the Court adopts that

13· ·approach, then you have the Sulphur case tried in March

14· ·or April, with liability established, and then you have

15· ·the Wind Complex cases, which are four all together

16· ·tried in May.

17· · · · · · ·Again, liability would be established,

18· ·assuming we're successful, and that would not in any way

19· ·interfere with the Atlas case.

20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'm going to ask you to

21· ·terminate -- just give me your final thoughts.

22· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Sure.· Yes, Your Honor.

23· · · · · · ·All I would say is we would respectfully

24· ·submit that these be set when they are ready to be

25· ·tried.· Thank you.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 37

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Let me turn it over to PG&E.

·2· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· Thank you, Your Honor.

·3· · · · · · ·So I think there are a number of things that

·4· ·Mr. Kelly and Mr. Simon and also Mr. Singleton said that

·5· ·are just factually not true.

·6· · · · · · ·There has been a lot of suggestion that

·7· ·there's some broad consensus that Atlas is a vegetation

·8· ·case, that it involves tree line contact, that we know

·9· ·that, it's simple.

10· · · · · · ·I want to be very, very clear PG&E does not

11· ·agree with that.· We did submit incident reports to the

12· ·CPUC that there was vegetation that contacted our lines,

13· ·but that does not say anything about whether or not that

14· ·vegetation caused a fire.

15· · · · · · ·For example, one of the two locations is a

16· ·location where we believe all of the evidence very

17· ·strongly establishes that the tree that fell because it

18· ·burned and after the lines were already deactivated.

19· · · · · · ·We do not believe either of those locations

20· ·were where the fire started.· So I just want to be clear

21· ·about that, because there's been a lot of suggestion

22· ·that there's broad consensus about what the facts are in

23· ·Atlas.

24· · · · · · ·There's the argument Atlas is simple because

25· ·we have basically a single point of origin and Tubbs

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 38

of 70
·1· ·complicated because there might be multiple points of

·2· ·origin.· Again, that's not true.

·3· · · · · · ·What we know is at least Cal Fire has said

·4· ·there are two origin points for Atlas.· So as I said, I

·5· ·disagree with both of those, but Cal Fire has identified

·6· ·two different locations, so Atlas will already involve

·7· ·at least those two spots and, we believe, others.

·8· · · · · · ·With respect to Tubbs, it's absolutely right

·9· ·that Cal Fire hasn't issued a report yet.· And

10· ·plaintiffs have tried to walk back statements they've

11· ·made about whether Tubbs involves vegetation.· And you

12· ·heard Mr. Simon say that's because we have more

13· ·discovery since the last conference.· It's not

14· ·consistent with the statement they submitted this week.

15· · · · · · ·If you look at page 2 of their submission,

16· ·they say that vegetation contact issues are common for

17· ·all the fires, excluding Tubbs, Cascade, and Sulphur.

18· · · · · · ·With respect --

19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Do you have a contention about how

20· ·many ignition points there are for Tubbs?

21· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· All of the evidence that we've

22· ·seen thus far points to the fact that the Tubbs fire

23· ·began in the vicinity of 1128 Bennett Lane.

24· · · · · · ·Now, there's more discovery to be done, but

25· ·there have been ten depositions of eyewitnesses to the

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 39

of 70
·1· ·fire starting in Tubbs.· No such depositions for Atlas.

·2· · · · · · ·We have body cam footage of police officers.

·3· ·We have first responders from Calistoga Fire Department

·4· ·and Cal Fire.· We have satellite data.· All of the

·5· ·evidence that exists today points to that origin point.

·6· · · · · · ·Now, that could change, just like the origin

·7· ·points for Atlas could change because there's a lot more

·8· ·discovery to occur.

·9· · · · · · ·But plaintiffs are asserting to Your Honor

10· ·that Tubbs is much more complicated than Atlas.· That's

11· ·not our view and, obviously, Your Honor can't resolve

12· ·that right not.· That's what the trial is for.· I'll

13· ·come back to that because at the end of the day that's

14· ·the key consideration.

15· · · · · · ·Now, with respect to access to evidence,

16· ·again, respectfully, I think Mr. Kelly and Mr. Simon got

17· ·it exactly backwards.· We are further ahead in getting

18· ·access to the Tubbs evidence than we are with respect to

19· ·the Atlas evidence.

20· · · · · · ·We don't have a report.· That is true on

21· ·Tubbs.· The report is not admissible anyway.

22· · · · · · ·What matters is being able to inspect the

23· ·evidence itself.· You heard Mr. Kelly say we haven't

24· ·heard back from Napa -- the Napa County District

25· ·Attorney with respect to Atlas and that is true.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 40

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·So we don't know as we stand here right now

·2· ·whether the Napa County District Attorney, which has

·3· ·taken the lead in the investigation of Atlas, will or

·4· ·will not permit us to inspect the Atlas evidence that

·5· ·Cal Fire has.

·6· · · · · · ·You also heard Mr. Kelly say with respect to

·7· ·Sonoma, which -- Sonoma, to all appearances in our

·8· ·interactions with them, they are our liaison for the

·9· ·Tubbs fire.· They are the ones taking the lead in the

10· ·investigation of the Tubbs fire from a district attorney

11· ·criminal perspective.

12· · · · · · ·They said to us yesterday they will have no

13· ·objection to any arrangement we can make with Cal Fire

14· ·to access the Tubbs evidence.

15· · · · · · ·Now, if Cal Fire refuses to give access to

16· ·Tubbs evidence, we will be in this courtroom very

17· ·quickly because the privilege is a law enforcement

18· ·privilege, and the investigating and prosecuting --

19· ·potentially prosecuting district attorney has said they

20· ·will not have an objection to all of us collectively

21· ·accessing that evidence.

22· · · · · · ·So it's just not true that Atlas is ahead of

23· ·Tubbs in that regard.· It's exactly backwards.

24· · · · · · ·With respect to Sulphur, again, the assertions

25· ·are we all know what happened in Sulphur.· I don't.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 41

of 70
·1· ·PG&E does not agree that the pole caused the fire.· It

·2· ·is not a simple case.

·3· · · · · · ·And with respect to Sulphur, again, let's say

·4· ·the pole did cause the fire.· There's not a single other

·5· ·fire where there's any such allegation.· Sulphur has, by

·6· ·our estimation, 2 percent of the total structures

·7· ·destroyed.· It has zero percent of the total fatalities.

·8· ·It has 4 percent if the plaintiffs who have actually

·9· ·filed suit.

10· · · · · · ·We have more than 3,000 individual plaintiffs

11· ·in this litigation.· There are 138 with respect to

12· ·Sulphur.· Sulphur has no chance of moving the needle.

13· ·It's just not credible to suggest it does.

14· · · · · · ·And one other point on that front, to address

15· ·something that Mr. Singleton said, trying the Sulphur

16· ·case first makes it less likely that the plaintiffs with

17· ·respect to that fire get paid sooner than more likely.

18· · · · · · ·Because if we go to that trial, we all know

19· ·there are inevitably going to be appeals and we know

20· ·those appeals are not going to be resolved for quite

21· ·some time.

22· · · · · · ·Whereas if we're able to move forward with a

23· ·fire that actually does move the needle to resolution,

24· ·Tubbs, that resolution is far more likely to happen

25· ·before those appeals can run.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 42

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·Now --

·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Do you think -- and the plaintiffs

·3· ·will have a chance to comment on this, too -- is the

·4· ·dispute here based on something that we're not talking

·5· ·about, which is that PG&E thinks it has a better shot at

·6· ·winning the Tubbs and the plaintiffs think they have a

·7· ·better shot at winning Atlas?

·8· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· I think it would be hard for

·9· ·anybody here not to draw that conclusion, Your Honor.

10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You don't have to say anything

11· ·more.

12· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· But I think that's exactly the

13· ·point, actually.· I'm glad Your Honor asked the

14· ·question.

15· · · · · · ·I think that's exactly the point because we

16· ·can't ultimately know.· There are all these arguments

17· ·about was Tubbs vegetation, was Tubbs one point or

18· ·multiple points, was Tubbs something that involved maybe

19· ·vegetation happening in one place and starting a fire in

20· ·another place?· That's what a trial is for, right? A

21· ·trial will resolve those issues.

22· · · · · · ·And from PG&E's perspective, facing the

23· ·specter of all of these many cases with all of these

24· ·different fires, we can't figure out how to resolve

25· ·these until we have some visibility into what the

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 43

of 70
·1· ·resolution is going to be of the Tubbs case.

·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.

·3· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· And two other quick points,

·4· ·Your Honor, with respect to discovery.

·5· · · · · · ·With respect to discovery, I do think we need

·6· ·a global discovery cutoff.· I think with respect to the

·7· ·corporate-level discovery, we have proposed March 1st.

·8· ·If the concern is they want a couple more weeks once

·9· ·they have the ESI, that's fine.

10· · · · · · ·Obviously, if they discover something after

11· ·the fact that requires them to reopen a request, that

12· ·always happens, right --

13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· When do you think you will finish

14· ·producing the things that you are currently under an

15· ·obligation to produce?

16· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· As we said in the stipulation,

17· ·Your Honor, we're currently believing we'll get it done

18· ·sometime in early to mid-February.· We're having a lot

19· ·of problems with backup tapes.

20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.

21· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· And I also think that discovery

22· ·cutoff, Your Honor, ought to apply to all of the fires

23· ·as well, because to Your Honor's point, which I think is

24· ·the right point, we have to get these all on a track to

25· ·get managed, delaying the discovery specific to other

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 44

of 70
·1· ·fires, i.e., the one that's not set for trial, I think,

·2· ·is more likely to drag this out.

·3· · · · · · ·Let's get it done.· We have a lot of

·4· ·plaintiffs' lawyers.· We have a lot of lawyers.· We can

·5· ·do that discovery simultaneously.

·6· · · · · · ·Our view is we should get it all done.

·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you very much.

·8· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· Thank you, Your Honor.

·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Any brief response?

10· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· Yes, brief.

11· · · · · · ·First of all, I am so grateful for PG&E's

12· ·benevolence, possibly giving us two weeks to review

13· ·things that are over 10 million pages.

14· · · · · · ·And I think the Court recognizes that this

15· ·continues to be a moving target.· Last time it was

16· ·December.· Now we skip January.· Now we're in February.

17· ·I think we ought to talk about a discovery cutoff when

18· ·we get the darn discovery.· We can come to you and

19· ·discuss it.

20· · · · · · ·Number two, do plaintiffs want to set Atlas

21· ·before Tubbs because they have a better shot at winning

22· ·Atlas?· Actually, I don't think that's a fair

23· ·characterization.· I think it's a fair question.

24· · · · · · ·We know the source of origin in Atlas without

25· ·dispute.· You've seen today how little we agree on.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 45

of 70
·1· ·Even a pole that fell over from woodpeckers, it wasn't

·2· ·the pole; it was something else.

·3· · · · · · ·The one thing we know about Atlas is that we

·4· ·have the okay of Cal Fire to deal with the DA.· We don't

·5· ·have that in Tubbs.· There was this long argument about

·6· ·us having it backward.

·7· · · · · · ·Here is what we know:· Cal Fire is a law

·8· ·enforcement agency.· They have the privilege.· They have

·9· ·not agreed to make any Tubbs evidence available.· If

10· ·we're going to approach a motion, we'll do a motion,

11· ·but, for goodness sake, let's get that straight.

12· · · · · · ·For the other fires, Cal Fire has said make a

13· ·deal with the DA's.· That's what we're doing.· We don't

14· ·have that agreement in Tubbs.

15· · · · · · ·So for me, why do you want to set Atlas?

16· ·Because we know something about it.

17· · · · · · ·And the rest of this is just kind of shooting

18· ·in the dark.· I say this, you say that, it happened at

19· ·the Zinc house, it didn't happen at the Zinc house.· You

20· ·know what we need?· We need to see the physical

21· ·evidence.· That way we don't characterize what a witness

22· ·saw.

23· · · · · · ·When I was a very baby lawyer, two things, the

24· ·first is I was always told the physical evidence isn't

25· ·on anybody's side.· We need to see the physical

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 46

of 70
·1· ·evidence.

·2· · · · · · ·Second, counsel suggests that we only move the

·3· ·needle if we try the case.· I'm so darn old I was here

·4· ·when we had discovery reforms in the late 1960s.· The

·5· ·truth of the matter is discovery is about each side

·6· ·getting sufficient information to evaluate their risk

·7· ·and the likelihood of success.

·8· · · · · · ·We don't have any discovery on Tubbs and we

·9· ·have no guarantee from the law enforcement agencies

10· ·we're going to get it.

11· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.

12· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Your Honor --

13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· No.· I really need to move on to

14· ·the other issues.· We have a number of other issues to

15· ·cover in the next few minutes.

16· · · · · · ·I want to talk about location next.· I don't

17· ·think the location issues depend on whether Tubbs or

18· ·Atlas or Sulphur goes first, but if you think that's

19· ·true, let me know.

20· · · · · · ·Here are my concerns.· San Francisco, it

21· ·strikes me, is much easier to get a jury and it's

22· ·probably much more convenient for the people in this

23· ·room.· It's not more convenient for the plaintiffs in

24· ·the sense that I think there will be a lot of interest

25· ·in the case and people will want to attend.· Most of

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 47

of 70
·1· ·those people are in the North Bay counties.· So San

·2· ·Francisco is probably much more convenient.

·3· · · · · · ·The North Bay counties, there's more interest

·4· ·and there is sort of a -- I think of it as almost a

·5· ·moral impetus to try to have a jury trial in the

·6· ·location where things happened, and I understand the

·7· ·interest that the plaintiffs themselves, maybe not their

·8· ·attorneys, but the plaintiffs themselves might have.

·9· · · · · · ·I think it will be much more difficult to get

10· ·a jury there.· I think jury selection in the North Bay

11· ·counties would be extremely difficult.

12· · · · · · ·I queried why it is that PG&E really wants to

13· ·have a jury trial up there.· Generally speaking -- I'm

14· ·not talking about this case, but generally speaking, the

15· ·defendants want out of the county where things like this

16· ·happen, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

17· · · · · · ·After I listened briefly to the attorneys on

18· ·their views, if you have more to say than is in the

19· ·written document, my plan is to at least touch base with

20· ·the presiding judges of Napa and Sonoma Counties to get

21· ·their, perhaps, visceral reaction to the ability of

22· ·those courts to actually handle any of these cases and

23· ·to get their views as to whether or not they think there

24· ·would be an enormous burden in selecting a jury and any

25· ·other things that you think I might touch base with them

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 48

of 70
·1· ·on.

·2· · · · · · ·If you think there are other topics I should

·3· ·discuss with them, I need to make a note of that as

·4· ·well.· That's my thought, to do that before I select a

·5· ·location.

·6· · · · · · ·In a few minutes -- we have about four or five

·7· ·other topics to talk about.· A topic about three lines

·8· ·down, there is the fact that -- I will just alert it to

·9· ·you right now, which is that this particular department,

10· ·304, is not available until the late summer of 2020 for

11· ·a trial, so if we are going to have trials in San

12· ·Francisco, it's unlikely that they will be in this

13· ·department.

14· · · · · · ·The parties are in general agreement,

15· ·August/September time frame, roughly, something around

16· ·in there, but the trial calendar in this department is

17· ·occupied until the early fall of 2020.

18· · · · · · ·So let's just have a few comments on the

19· ·location first, the location issue.· If there is

20· ·anything else I should know about that.

21· · · · · · ·Thank you.

22· · · · · · ·Sir.

23· · · · · · ·MR. PITRE:· Good morning, Your Honor, Frank

24· ·Petri.· I'll make this simple.· We agree with the Court.

25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· I'll take that as a yes.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 49

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· I guess that puts me in the

·2· ·position of having to disagree with the Court.

·3· · · · · · ·I actually don't with respect to the critical

·4· ·point you made, Your Honor, which is there's almost a

·5· ·moral impetus to have the cases tried where the events

·6· ·occurred.· And you're absolutely right, Your Honor, that

·7· ·you would usually expect me to stand up here and be

·8· ·taking their position and theirs would be taking ours.

·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You want to have this trial in

10· ·North Carolina?

11· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· I'll reserve comment on North

12· ·Carolina.

13· · · · · · ·Let me explain to Your Honor why we think

14· ·that's important.· Because we have looked at what the

15· ·relevant facts are, we've looked at the issues that we

16· ·believe are going to be critical to the resolution of

17· ·any of these cases, and we have concluded strongly that

18· ·our best chance to get a fair trial and to get a trial

19· ·that leads to the proper result requires a jury who has

20· ·some familiarity with the issues.

21· · · · · · ·These are -- I'm from New York.· We all know

22· ·that, so I don't live in San Francisco or in one of the

23· ·North Bay counties, but I've spent enough time here to

24· ·know that San Francisco is different than the North Bay

25· ·counties in ways that are very significant with respect

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 50

of 70
·1· ·to these fires:· What the vegetation issues are up

·2· ·there, what the weather issues are up there, what the

·3· ·fire experiences have been up there.

·4· · · · · · ·One of the critical arguments that plaintiffs

·5· ·have presented since they filed their first complaint is

·6· ·PG&E could have avoided all of this by just turning the

·7· ·power off on October 7th.

·8· · · · · · ·Well, we've seen the news even out in New York

·9· ·about the de-energization that occurred in the last ten

10· ·days or so, which has been a very difficult topic for a

11· ·lot of people because you have to balance two different

12· ·safety concerns, the safety risk of leaving the power on

13· ·and potentially having a fire started --

14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· So is it your view that the folks

15· ·in the North Bay come to this case knowing a lot more

16· ·about it than somebody from San Francisco and that we

17· ·should -- those are the people that we're going to keep

18· ·on the jury?

19· · · · · · ·When jury trials started, that's actually the

20· ·way things were done.· We would pick people who knew all

21· ·about the case.· Those would be the people we would have

22· ·on the jury -- this is England before the United States

23· ·commenced.· We would actually pick people who knew

24· ·everything that there was to know about the case and

25· ·we'd put them on the jury.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 51

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·And somehow we've changed.· In the United

·2· ·States, now we kick those people off, right?· How much

·3· ·do you know about this?· Do you have a feeling about the

·4· ·impact of power surges and loss of energy?· Do you have

·5· ·a sense of this?· Do you know how -- we actually tend to

·6· ·boot those people and we get 12 people who are

·7· ·completely ignorant and we use them as a jury.

·8· · · · · · ·So where does your plan sort of fit in with

·9· ·the way things are done?

10· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· So I think there's a spectrum

11· ·here, Your Honor.· We'd obviously boot someone who saw

12· ·the fire start.· We'd boot someone whose brother's house

13· ·burned down, right, but we have, in Sonoma alone a half

14· ·a million residents.

15· · · · · · ·And our view is it's not having familiarity

16· ·with the facts of the specific fire; it's knowing their

17· ·community.· It's their community that was impacted.

18· ·There are claims here for punitive damages that are

19· ·designed to effect change in how PG&E goes about doing

20· ·its job of delivering safe and reliable power.

21· · · · · · ·Who's going to be affected by that?· The

22· ·people who live in those communities.

23· · · · · · ·And we believe that it is very important for

24· ·PG&E's actions and statements about what PG&E's actions

25· ·ought to be going forward to be judged by the people who

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 52

of 70
·1· ·have been and will be affected by those actions.

·2· · · · · · ·That's our view, Your Honor.

·3· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I appreciate that.· Thank you.

·4· · · · · · ·Let me turn to the next topic, which is if

·5· ·there's anything more to say on the types of plaintiffs

·6· ·that we're looking for.· There's a little bit of a

·7· ·dispute.· I'm not sure there's more to say about it at

·8· ·this particular point and I don't think we have to

·9· ·resolve it right away.

10· · · · · · ·But for example, plaintiffs have suggested

11· ·we'd want to have wineries and non-wineries involved.

12· ·PG&E thinks that's not appropriate because business loss

13· ·is complicated.· My tentative view is it's not that

14· ·complicated.· Maybe you have a witness on each side

15· ·talking about business losses.

16· · · · · · ·PG&E has suggested another criteria, what they

17· ·call annoyance damages, people who have been affected by

18· ·soot and air but without any other serious property

19· ·damages.

20· · · · · · ·If anybody has a comment that I won't find in

21· ·the written document I am happy to hear that.

22· · · · · · ·MR. KELLY:· I don't think we object to adding

23· ·such a person, Your Honor.

24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.

25· · · · · · ·With respect to trial dates, I've already said

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 53

of 70
·1· ·really what I want to say about that.· I don't know what

·2· ·there is that you can say unless you can settle some of

·3· ·these cases that have been set in this department,

·4· ·there's not much you can do.

·5· · · · · · ·But to the extent that the cases are in San

·6· ·Francisco, my plan is to talk to my presiding judge and

·7· ·get permission to have those come out of Department 206.

·8· · · · · · ·I don't think anybody wants to wait until 2020

·9· ·to get these cases.· That's a delay of almost -- about a

10· ·year past the time period that both sides are in general

11· ·agreement, so I'm seeing affirmative nods of the head

12· ·and I'll just pass by that for now.

13· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· Can I just make one comment,

14· ·Your Honor, very briefly?

15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Of course.

16· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· While we would prefer for

17· ·Your Honor to preside over the trial, 2020 is a long

18· ·time away.

19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Right.

20· · · · · · ·MR. ORSINI:· Our view is if Your Honor does

21· ·ultimately keep the trials here or if you send them to

22· ·Sonoma or Napa, our one view is that Your Honor, working

23· ·with the presiding judge here or there, would have the

24· ·authority to designate in advance who the trial judge

25· ·will be, rather than waiting for the standard you find

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 54

of 70
·1· ·out the morning you report for trial.

·2· · · · · · ·Our view is that type of approach would be far

·3· ·more conducive to getting a really streamlined trial

·4· ·prepared and would help in a case of this complexity.

·5· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I think you're absolutely right.

·6· ·Thank you.

·7· · · · · · ·There are apparently -- with respect to the

·8· ·plaintiffs' submissions of damages information, I know

·9· ·there's a representative from the Singleton law firm

10· ·here and maybe, hopefully, from the Frantz Law Group as

11· ·well.· I'd invite attorneys from those two entities to

12· ·let me know what the status is.

13· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· Certainly, Your Honor.

14· · · · · · ·As we put in our papers, we provided responses

15· ·to, I think, 760.

16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Right.

17· · · · · · ·MR. SINGLETON:· There were roughly 17 for whom

18· ·we could not provide responses.· We couldn't get in

19· ·touch with them.· We've dismissed them without

20· ·prejudice, so there are now zero that we have not

21· ·provided responses to.

22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.

23· · · · · · ·And is there a representative of the Frantz

24· ·Law Group here?

25· · · · · · ·MR. McNICHOLAS:· Your Honor, this is Patrick

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 55

of 70
·1· ·McNicholas.

·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· If you could state your -- sir,

·3· ·hold on just one second.

·4· · · · · · ·Please state your name one more time slowly

·5· ·and then go ahead.

·6· · · · · · ·MR. McNICHOLAS:· McNicholas & McNicholas.

·7· ·We're with the Frantz Law Group.

·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Could you start again, please?

·9· · · · · · ·Could you please start again?

10· · · · · · ·We cannot hear you very well.· Speak very

11· ·slowly, please, as you state your name.

12· · · · · · ·MR. McNICHOLAS:· This is Patrick McNicholas

13· ·from McNicholas & McNicholas.

14· · · · · · ·MR. FRANTZ:· James Frantz from the Frantz Law

15· ·Group.

16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.

17· · · · · · ·Mr. Frantz, could you tell us what your status

18· ·is?

19· · · · · · ·MR. FRANTZ:· My status?

20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· The status of your plaintiffs;

21· ·have they provided the damages information?· Are any of

22· ·them out of compliance?

23· · · · · · ·MR. FRANTZ:· Regina Bagdasarian of my office

24· ·is here and she's handling that component of the CMO.

25· · · · · · ·Regina, if you want to speak to that.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 56

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·MS. BAGDASARIAN:· Yes, Your Honor.

·2· · · · · · ·We have submitted the vast majority of

·3· ·plaintiffs' information with regard to the evidence as

·4· ·to what they saw in the fires.· We have a few of them

·5· ·that we're still following up with, and we expect to be

·6· ·complete very shortly.

·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· How many are you following up

·8· ·with?

·9· · · · · · ·MS. BAGDASARIAN:· I think there's about 70,

10· ·and we've filed a total of 626 plaintiffs so far.

11· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Seventy, seven-zero?

12· · · · · · ·MS. BAGDASARIAN:· Yes, Your Honor.

13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And when will it be done?

14· · · · · · ·MS. BAGDASARIAN:· If we could have 30 days,

15· ·I'm sure we could be complete with that.· We've been

16· ·calling them and following up with them regularly and

17· ·we're just waiting on some return information.

18· · · · · · ·Some of them thought they had provided

19· ·everything and had some missing component.· We just want

20· ·to make sure we're complete.

21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I appreciate that.

22· · · · · · ·Was there somebody else on the telephone who

23· ·wanted to address this issue?

24· · · · · · · · · · · (No response.)

25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Apparently not.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 57

of 70
·1· · · · · · ·With respect to the continuing negotiations

·2· ·between -- at this point it's really the DA's; it's not

·3· ·so much Cal Fire, but it's really the DA's regarding

·4· ·referred fires.

·5· · · · · · ·I would really want those discussions to

·6· ·happen as fast as possible, and if a motion has to be

·7· ·brought, then let's bring it.

·8· · · · · · ·But I think you should invite the DA's to come

·9· ·in for informal conference with me.· They may or may not

10· ·agree.· They have a right to decline.· That's fine.

11· · · · · · ·But I'm available to talk, and we can have an

12· ·informal off-the-record conference.· Anybody who wants

13· ·to come can come.· It won't be on the telephone.· It

14· ·will be an in-person meeting.· We'll put the tables

15· ·together and we'll sit around the table and we'll see if

16· ·we can work something out, as I say, off the record.

17· · · · · · ·But that might help sort of figure out exactly

18· ·what the problems are and we might be able to work that

19· ·out, so that's an available approach.

20· · · · · · ·With respect to the mediators, I'm glad people

21· ·are looking at folks.· I don't know if there's a

22· ·conflict between what the individual plaintiffs are

23· ·thinking of.· There was one reference to Justice

24· ·Trotter, and I know a number of people in this room have

25· ·had experience with Justice Trotter; and then also Judge

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 58

of 70
·1· ·Daniel Weinstein and Mr. Mayer, who have also been

·2· ·indicated.· So I'm not going to speak any more about

·3· ·that.

·4· · · · · · ·I also see that Judge Vaughn Walker has been

·5· ·suggested as somebody who could help with respect to the

·6· ·subrogation plaintiffs.

·7· · · · · · ·These mediations have to occur before trial

·8· ·and, hopefully, sufficiently, substantially before trial

·9· ·so you're actually saving time and effort and money if

10· ·the mediations work out, but we can take that up at some

11· ·other point.

12· · · · · · ·Let's go off the record and pick the next CMC

13· ·date.

14· · · · · · · ·(Discussion off the record.)

15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Back on the record.

16· · · · · · ·The next CMC is set for January 25th between

17· ·9:00 and 11:00 a.m.

18· · · · · · ·I'll get an order out within the next few

19· ·days, a few business days.

20· · · · · · ·Thank you for coming in.· It's good to see

21· ·everybody.

22· · ·(Whereupon, proceedings adjourned at 10:17 a.m.)

23

24

25

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 59

of 70
·1· ·State of California· · · · · · · · )

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )

·2· ·County of San Francisco· · · · · · )

·3

·4

·5· · · · I, Mary Ann Scanlan, California Certified Shorthand

·6· ·Reporter No. 8875, do hereby certify:

·7· · · · That I was present at the time of the above

·8· ·proceedings;

·9· · · · That I took down in machine shorthand notes all

10· ·proceedings had and testimony given;

11· · · · That I thereafter transcribed said shorthand notes

12· ·with the aid of a computer;

13· · · · That the above and foregoing is a full, true, and

14· ·correct transcription of said shorthand notes, and a

15· ·full, true and correct transcript of all proceedings had

16· ·and testimony taken;

17· · · · That I am not a party to the action or related to a

18· ·party or counsel;

19· · · · That I have no financial or other interest in the

20· ·outcome of the action.

21

22· ·Dated:· October 29, 2018

23

24· · · · · · · · · · ·_____________________________________

· · · · · · · · · · · ·MARY ANN SCANLAN CSR No. 8875

25

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 60

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 61

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 62

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 63

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 64

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 65

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 66

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 67

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 68

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 69

of 70
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2847-3 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:23:46 Page 70

of 70