1

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

Robert A. Julian (SBN 88469)

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 628.208.6434

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496)

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509

Telephone: 310.820.8800

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com

Counsel to the Official Committee of Tort Claimants

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors.

□ Affects PG&E Corporation

□ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

■ Affects both Debtors

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

STATEMENT OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

REGARDING AUGUST 27, 2019 

STATUS CONFERENCE ON 

ESTIMATION

Date: August 27, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m. (Pacific Time)

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3672 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 11:41:24 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

- 2 -

The Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”) respectfully submits this Statement 

with respect to the August 27, 2019 Status Conference in this case. The TCC has the same principal 

goals for estimation as the TCC described in its August 7, 2019, estimation brief: (1) streamline 

estimation to the greatest extent possible; and, (2) in order to evaluate how to streamline the 

proceedings, the TCC needs the Debtors to inform the Court and the TCC the legal and factual 

bases for contesting the Debtors’ liability for the fires. The Debtors have agreed their equipment 

caused the fires, but have not identified the legal and factual bases for denying liability for the fires 

they caused. 

The TCC’s goals remain the same, first, to obtain the Debtors’ explanation of their legal 

and factual bases for denying they are liable for the fires they admit their equipment caused. 

Second, with that explanation in hand, the TCC would be able to evaluate procedures for estimation. 

Additionally, and just as important, with the Debtors’ identification of the bases for their denial of 

liability, the parties and the Court would be able to determine the scope of discovery of the liability 

issues the Debtors identify, and the length of time for that discovery. That identification is 

fundamental under the standards of Rule 7026 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 

(“Bankruptcy Rules”) and Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to 

the estimation proceeding by Bankruptcy Rule 9014, so that the parties and the Court can determine 

the scope and timing of discovery.

The Debtors’ identification is especially appropriate in this case, given the controlling 

authority that the Debtors’ admission that their equipment caused the fires, as set forth in the 

Cal Fire reports (that identify PG&E’s violations of law), places the burden on the Debtors to 

explain and prove they were not liable for the fires, and hence should be disclosing the factual and 

legal bases for denying their liability. See, e.g., Scally v Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 23 Cal. App. 3d 

806, 820-21 (1972) (holding that a fire started by a tree branch falling on PG&E uninsulated lines 

establishes PG&E’s liability under doctrine of res ipsa loquitor as a matter of law); Mata v. Pac. 

Gas & Elec. Co., 224 Cal. App. 4th 309, 313 (2014), as modified on denial of reh'g (Mar. 26, 2014) 

(holding that if PG&E had violated a law then it would have been liable for negligence per se).

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3672 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 11:41:24 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

- 3 -

In an August 22, 2019 letter, the Debtors proposed an estimation process that is antithetical 

to Bankruptcy Rule 7026’s early identification of liability legal and factual bases, and the legal 

consequences of their admission that their equipment caused the fires. The Debtors’ letter proposed 

that just prior to the estimation hearings, the TCC would file an opening brief identifying the legal 

and factual liability issues to be tried, the Debtors would respond, and the TCC would put on its 

estimation case first. There are several infirmities in that plan, but two are most glaring. First, the 

Debtors should today explain the legal and factual bases for trying to evade liability for the fires 

after admitting the Debtors caused the fires. The TCC should not have to wait until the estimation 

hearings to receive that most fundamental explanation that shapes preparation for the hearings. 

Second, prior to the pretrial conference, the TCC requests the Court determine whether PG&E’s 

admission that it caused the fires as described in the Cal Fire reports shifts the burden of disproving 

liability to the Debtors under the controlling case authority for the application of res ipsa loquitor

and negligence per se in this case. That ruling would decide which party would present its 

estimation evidence first at the estimation hearings. 

In furtherance of these goals, the TCC requests the Court to order the following case 

management orders:

1. Order the Debtors to explain the legal and factual bases for denying liability for the 

fires that the Debtors admit they caused within two weeks of the August 27, 2019 status conference. 

A copy of the TCC’s August 22, 2019 letter and interrogatory request for that information is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. Order the parties to appear at a status conference one week after serving their 

interrogatory responses for the purpose of (i) determining whether the Debtors have identified the 

issues fully, (ii) scheduling briefing on the application of res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se in 

order for the Court to determine the burden of proof at the hearings, and thereby narrow the hearings 

by such a ruling, and (iii) scheduling a Pretrial Conference for the estimation hearings. The TCC 

believes those determinations are within this Court’s jurisdiction in aid of preparing the issues for 

estimation prior to the Pretrial Conference. In connection with the Pretrial Conference, the Court 

and the parties will have an opportunity, based on the rulings the Court has made through that date, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3672 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 11:41:24 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

- 4 -

to shape and narrow the estimation proceedings, including consent to core jurisdiction if 

appropriate, considering the extent to which the case has been shaped and narrowed at the time.

3. Order the Debtors to commence production of documents that support their denial 

of liability for the Tubbs, Camp, Atlas, Nuns and Redwood fires immediately (and the other fires 

thereafter) and produce the select documents described in the TCC’s letter request to the Debtors, 

that the TCC will produce at the status conference, so the TCC may commence fundamental 

preparation for the estimation hearings. 

4. Order the Debtors, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, the Ad Hoc 

Group of Subrogation Claim Holders and the TCC to submit an agreed set of mediators, including 

at least one former bankruptcy judge or specialist, to the Court one week in advance of the next 

status conference for consideration as mediators in this case.

Dated: August 23, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

By: /s/ Robert A. Julian

Robert A. Julian

Counsel to the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3672 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 11:41:24 Page 4 of

 4