1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1 0 

1 1 

1 2 

1 3 

1 4 

1 5 

1 6 

1 7 

1 8 

1 9 

2 0 

2 1 

2 2 

2 3 

2 4 

2 5 

2 6 

2 7 

2 8 

De n nis F. D u n ne (a d mitte d pr o h ac vice ) Sa m uel A. K halil (a d mitte d pr o h ac vice ) MI L B A N K L L P 

5 5 H u ds o n Yar ds 

Ne w Y or k, Ne w Y or k 1 0 0 0 1- 2 1 6 3 

Tele p h o ne: ( 2 1 2) 5 3 0- 5 0 0 0 

Facsi mile: ( 2 1 2) 5 3 0- 5 2 1 9 

a n d 

Gre g or y A. Bra y ( S B N 1 1 5 3 6 7) 

T h o mas R. Kreller ( S B N 1 6 1 9 2 2) 

MI L B A N K L L P 

2 0 2 9 Ce nt ur y Par k East, 3 3r d Fl o or 

L os A n geles, C A 9 0 0 6 7 

Tele p h o ne: ( 4 2 4) 3 8 6- 4 0 0 0 

Facsi mile: ( 2 1 3) 6 2 9- 5 0 6 3 

C o u nsel f or t he Offici al C o m mittee 

of U nsec ure d Cre dit ors

U NI T E D S T A T E S B A N K R U P T C Y C O U R T 

N O R T H E R N DI S T RI C T O F C A LI F O R NI A 

S A N F R A N CI S C O DI VI SI O N 

I n re: 

P G & E C O R P O R A TI O N 

 - a n d - 

P A CI FI C G A S A N D E L E C T RI C 

C O M P A N Y,

De bt ors.

Case N o. 1 9- 3 0 0 8 8 ( D M) 

C ha pter 1 1 

( Lea d Case) 

(J oi ntl y A d mi nistere d) 

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E O F FI CI A L 

C O M MI T T E E O F U N S E C U R E D 

C R E DI T O R S R E G A R DI N G C R O S SM O TI O N S F O R E N T R Y O F A 

P R O T E C TI V E O R D E R B Y 

(I) O F FI CI A L C O M MI T T E E O F 

T O R T C L AI M A N T S A N D (II) D E B T O R S 

Date: J u ne 2 6, 2 0 1 9 

Ti me: 9: 3 0 a. m. ( Pacific Ti me) 

Place: U nite d States Ba n kr u ptc y C o urt 

 C o urtr o o m 1 7, 1 6t h Fl o or 

 4 5 0 G ol de n Gate A ve n ue 

 Sa n Fra ncisc o, C A 9 4 1 0 2 

Re: D oc ket N os. 2 4 1 9 a n d 2 4 5 9 

Affects P G & E C or p orati o n 

Affects Pacific Gas a n d Electric 

C o m pa n y 

   Affects b ot h De bt ors 

 All p a pers s h all be file d i n t he Le a d C ase, 

N o. 1 9- 3 0 0 8 8 ( D M) . 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2652 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:40:26 Page 1 of

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 

26 

27 

28 

2 

44553.00001

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) of PG&E Corp. and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (collectively, the “Debtors”) respectfully submits this statement 

regarding both the (i) Motion of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants for Entry of a Protective 

Order (the “TCC Protective Order Motion”) [Docket No. 2419] and (ii) Motion for Entry of 

Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 and 9014(c) and 11 U.S.C. §105(a) 

Governing Discovery Materials and Other Information [Docket No. 2459] (the “Debtors’ 

Protective Order Motion” and, together with the TCC Protective Order Motion, the “CrossMotions”). 

STATEMENT 

1. The Debtors, the Committee, and the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the 

“TCC”) have agreed to nearly every provision in a 15-page Protective Order governing the 

exchange of “Discovery Material” in these cases. A single provision in that Order remains 

disputed, concerning which party—producing or receiving—should inform the Court first about 

an unresolvable dispute as to whether particular Discovery Material has been appropriately 

designated as confidential. This is a minor issue that should have been resolved consensually. 

2. The Debtors solicited comments from the Committee on the form of a proposed 

protective order several weeks ago, and the Committee’s feedback was largely incorporated.1 The 

Committee was apprised of the dispute between the Debtors and the TCC concerning the “Judicial 

Intervention” provision of the proposed order and remained agnostic. While the Committee views 

the dispute as immaterial relative to the much more important business of gathering and sharing 

the information that will be necessary to accurately assess the magnitude of the Debtors’ claims 

pools and bring these cases to a swift conclusion, the Committee’s limited view on the issue is 

stated briefly herein. 

 

1

 The Committee subsequently proposed an addition to Section 5.4 of the Debtors’ proposed 

order (“‘CONTRACTOR CONFIDENTIAL’ Material”), affording PG&E Contractors 

who produce Discovery Material in these cases a parallel right to redact sensitive and 

proprietary financial information, such as “bidding calculations” or “profit information,” 

subject to the challenge procedures set forth in the proposed order. The Debtors are in 

agreement with the Committee’s proposed addition and have indicated that they will make 

the requested change. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2652 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:40:26 Page 2 of

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 

26 

27 

28 

3 

44553.00001

VIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 

3. To be clear, the Committee would be agreeable to either articulation of the proposed 

“Judicial Intervention” provision. But to the extent an issue in dispute is which party shall bear 

the ultimate burden of proving whether a confidentiality designation is warranted, the Committee 

believes the burden should lie with the designating party. 

4. Each of this District’s model protective order and the majority of the relevant 

authority, including from this Court, indicate that it is proper for the designating party to bear the 

burden of proving that challenged confidentiality designations are warranted. In fact, none of the 

protective orders annexed to either of the competing motions place the ultimate burden of 

persuasion on the challenging party, and many expressly place the burden on the designating party. 

See Declaration of Richard W. Slack in Support of Motion for Entry of Protective Order Pursuant 

to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 and 9014(c) and 11 U.S.C. Section 105(a) Governing Discovery 

Materials and Other Information [Docket No. 2460] (“Slack Decl.”) Ex. B (Stipulated Protective

Order, In re PG&E, Case No. 01-30923 (May 11, 2001), ECF No. 503) ¶ 10 (“The burden of 

proving that information has been properly designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL’ or 

‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL/ RESTRICTED MATERIAL’ is on the party making such 

designation.”); id. Ex. D (Stipulated Protective Order, In re PG&E, Case No. 01-30923 (May 24, 

2001), ECF No. 691) ¶ 10 (same); id. Ex. G (Model Stipulated Protective Order for Litigation 

Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets, U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of California) at 9:10 (“The burden of persuasion in any such 

challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating Party.”); TCC Protective Order Motion, Exhibit 

A (Declaration of Lars Fuller), Exhibit 1 (Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation, U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California) ¶ 6.3 (same).2

 

2

 The remaining protective orders annexed to the motions are silent on which party bears the 

burden of persuasion in a challenge proceeding, if indeed a challenge proceeding is 

contemplated therein. See id. Ex. A (Stipulation for Protective Order; Order Thereon, In 

re RDIO, Inc., Case No. 15-31430 (Jan. 15, 2016), ECF No. 165) ¶ 16 (silent on burden in 

challenge proceeding); Ex. C (Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidential 

Information, In re PG&E, Case No. 01-30923 (May 22, 2001), ECF No. 619) ¶ 17 (silent 

on burden in challenge proceeding); id. Ex. F (Agreed Protective Order, In re Brobeck, 

Phleger & Harrison, Case No. 03-32715-DM7 (Nov. 8, 2004), ECF No. 666) ¶ 10 (silent 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2652 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:40:26 Page 3 of

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 

26 

27 

28 

4 

44553.00001

5. Any counterargument appears to boil down to the notion that these cases are large 

and complex, and that because discovery is likely to be asymmetric, the Debtors will bear too 

onerous a burden. See Debtors’ Protective Order Motion at 4:1-3, 4:20-24, 10:4-6, 10:7-10. But 

asymmetric discovery is inherent to the nature of discovery in all bankruptcy proceedings. 

Moreover, even in the previous iteration of this large, complex case, the Court found it proper to 

place the ultimate burden of persuasion in a challenge proceeding on the designating party. See

Slack Decl. Ex. B. (Stipulated Protective Order, In re PG&E, Case No. 01-30923 (May 11, 2001), 

ECF No. 503) ¶ 10; id. Ex. D (Stipulated Protective Order, In re PG&E, Case No. 01-30923 (May 

24, 2001), ECF No. 691) ¶ 10. 

6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee will comply with either form of 

order that the Court determines to be just and proper. 

 

Dated: June 19, 2019 

MILBANK LLP 

/s/ Andrew M. Leblanc . DENNIS F. DUNNE 

SAMUEL A. KHALIL 

GREGORY A. BRAY 

THOMAS R. KRELLER 

ANDREW M. LEBLANC 

Counsel for the Official Committee of 

Unsecured Creditors

 on burden in challenge proceeding) id. Ex. E (Order Directing Production of Documents 

to ISO/PX Market Participants Pursuant to Federal Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Protective 

Order Respecting Confidentiality of Documents, In re PG&E, Case No. 01-30923 (July 

11, 2001), ECF No. 1448) ¶ 5.I (contemplates objections to disclosures of designated 

material with outside parties, but no confidentiality challenge proceeding contemplated; 

silent on burden in disclosure proceedings). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2652 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:40:26 Page 4 of

4