EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 1

of 55
1

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 1

JOINT SUBMISSION RE PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVIDUAL CASES 

INCLUDING: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE SPECIFIC DISCOVERY, PRODUCTION OF CLAIM FILES, AND 

TRIAL SELECTION AND PREFERENCE MOTIONS - JCCP No. 4955 

MICHAEL A. KELLY (SB #71460) 

mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com 

KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI (SB #190111) 

kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com 

WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & 

SCHOENBERGER

650 California Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 981-7210 

FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077) 

fpitre@cpmlegal.com 

ALISON E. CORDOVA (SBN 284942) 

acordova@cpmlegal.com 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY 

San Francisco Airport Office Center 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010 

Telephone: (650) 697-6000 

STEVEN SKIKOS (SB #148110)

sskikos@skikos.com 

SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, ET AL.

1 Sansome Street, Ste 2830 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 546-7300 

ON BEHALF OF DIRECT PLAINTIFFS

EVAN R. CHESLER (pro hac vice) 

echesler@cravath.com 

TIMOTHY G. CAMERON (pro hac vice) 

tcameron@cravath.com 

KEVIN J. ORSINI (pro hac vice) 

korsini@cravath.com 

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (212) 474-1000 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS 

CRAIG S. SIMON (SB #78158) 

csimon@bergerkahn.com 

BERGER KAHN, A Law Corporation 

1 Park Plaza, Suite 340 

Irvine, CA 92614 

Telephone: (949) 474-1880 

ON BEHALF OF SUBROGATION PLAINTIFFS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Coordination Proceeding 

Special Title (Rule 3.550) 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES 

 JCCP No. 4955 

JOINT SUBMISSION RE PROPOSED 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS 5 AND 6 

RE INDIVIDUAL CASES INCLUDING: 

CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE SPECIFIC 

DISCOVERY, PRODUCTION OF CLAIM 

FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND 

PREFERENCE MOTIONS 

Assigned for All Purposes to: 

Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow, Dept. 304

After meeting and conferring pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 3.724 and 3.727, 

Plaintiffs and Defendants Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (collectively, 

“PG&E”) hereby jointly submit this Joint Submission and Proposed Case Management Order 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 2

of 55
1

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

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

Number Five relating to issues involving Individual Plaintiffs (See CMO 1.A.1) including 

compliance with both CMO 1 and CMO 2, Case Specific Discovery, Production of Subrogation 

Claim Files, and Trial Selection. 

I. PROCEDURE FOR IMPROVING THE TRACKING OF COMPLIANCE WITH 

CASE FILING REQUIREMENTS 

A. Application to All Cases and Counsel 

These provisions apply to any Individual Plaintiff whose case has been transferred to 

JCCP 4955 and to any Individual Plaintiff whose case is transferred to JCCP 4955 in the future. 

B. CMO 1 Requirements: Notice of Adoption/Short Form Complaint 

On March 6, 2018, this Court entered CMO 1 by agreement of the parties. Pursuant to 

CMO 1, the Individual Plaintiffs filed the Master Complaint on March 12, 2018. On March 16, 

2018, the Defendants filed their Master Answer. CMO 1 established the proper procedures in 

JCCP 4995 for filing and serving the Notice of Adoption of the Master Complaint (pp. 11-14). 

Plaintiffs’ Liaison has engaged in extensive outreach and communication and has collected 

information from each of the known law firms representing plaintiffs whose cases are coordinated 

in JCCP 4955. To date, those firms have identified more than 3,200 individual plaintiffs who are 

a party to a lawsuit against PG&E alleging damages related to one of the North Bay Fires. 

Plaintiffs’ Liaison continues to receive responses from counsel identifying new plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs’ Liaison collects this data in order to assess each primary counsel’s compliance with 

CMO 1, which requires service of either a Short Form Complaint or a Notice of Adoption, and to 

provide reports to this Court regarding compliance. 

In order to track compliance with Case Management Orders, including CMO 1, the 

Individual Plaintiffs retained BrownGreer PLC (“BrownGreer”) to manage and control all of the 

case-specific data relating to JCCP 4995. Under the supervision of Individual Plaintiffs’ Lead and 

Liaison counsel, BrownGreer has reviewed and uploaded all of the Notices of Adoption and Short 

Form Complaints into a database, referred to hereinafter as the BrownGreer Portal. 

Each Individual Plaintiff with a Short Form Complaint or Notice of Adoption has been 

given a unique control number, which has been connected to a particular file. The BrownGreer 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 3

of 55
1

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

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

Portal has and will continue to assist the Court with monitoring compliance with Case 

Management Orders 1 and 2. To date, 3,100 plaintiffs (99%) have complied with CMO 1 by 

serving a Short Form Complaint (“SFC”) or Notice of Adoption (“NOA”). 

In the interests of maintaining an orderly and complete list of Plaintiffs who have adopted 

the Master Complaint for the benefit of the Court, Individual Plaintiffs propose that BrownGreer 

provide a regular Notice of Adoption Report to the Court. This report will include the name of 

each plaintiff who has adopted the Master Complaint by virtue of serving an NOA or by filing an 

SFC, as well as: the name of the primary law firm representing the plaintiff; the fire or fires 

alleged to have caused injuries to the plaintiff or plaintiff household; the docket case number; and 

the NOA/SFC case number, hereinafter “Household Number”.1

 The provision of these Notice of 

Adoption Reports will not obviate, limit, or otherwise affect plaintiffs’ pleading obligations under 

CMO 1. 

To assist lead counsel in tracking information pertaining to compliance with case filing 

requirements, going forward, any individual plaintiff who seeks to initiate litigation may do so 

initially through the BrownGreer Portal, which provides the means to submit basic individual 

plaintiff information as well as an interactive form for the preparation of an NOA or an SFC. The 

BrownGreer Portal will also assign the Individual Plaintiff(s) with a Household Number, which 

shall be used on the SFC and NOA of the Master Complaint. 

II. CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER TWO: LIABILITY DISCOVERY FROM 

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 

A. CMO 2 – Rules Applicable to Cases Added to the JCCP 

The parties have agreed that for new cases added to the JCCP, each Individual Plaintiff 

shall complete and upload to the BrownGreer Portal the CMO 2 Questionnaire within 30 days 

from the order granting coordination of their case. Then, for all new cases, BrownGreer will 

present to the Defendants and to Individual Plaintiffs’ leadership the responsive information in a 

 

1

 Household Number will be used synonymously with the Notice of Adoption Complaint Number. 

This unique identifier will be used to capture the claims of all plaintiffs who file together under 

one NOA/SFC per CMO 1, including individuals, as well as business entities. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 4

of 55
1

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

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

CMO 2 report every sixty (60) days. The next CMO 2 report shall be due on January 14, 2019. 

B. CMO 2 – Plaintiffs as Witnesses 

On November 16th, Plaintiffs’ leadership provided a set of the collected CMO 2 responses 

to PG&E. PG&E has requested depositions of individual plaintiffs who claimed to have witnessed 

what could be the ignition of a particular fire. The Individual Plaintiffs’ leadership requested that 

PG&E review the interrogatory responses and coordinate with Individual Plaintiffs’ leadership and 

representing counsel prior to requesting the deposition of an individual plaintiff. 

III. DAMAGES INFORMATION FROM SUBROGATION PLAINTIFFS 

CMO 1 contemplates the production of subrogation files/claim files on a rolling basis (see 

CMO 1, pp. 16-17). The parties have met and conferred regarding a schedule governing the 

production of claim files and payment data from Subrogating Plaintiffs. The following procedures 

have been agreed to by the parties and will govern the production of claim files to the Individual 

Plaintiffs and to PG&E. 

A. Retained Individual Plaintiffs—Insurance Information Sharing 

Each Counsel or Law Firm with a case coordinated in JCCP 4955 shall submit within 10 

days of the entry of CMO 5 a List of Individual Plaintiffs, whether filed or unfiled, who have 

retained Counsel or Law Firm in conjunction with claims arising out of a fire that is subject to 

JCCP 4955. This List shall include: 

 The first name and last name of all adult members of each household (household 

defined as a group of Individual Plaintiffs suffering a loss associated with the same 

address);2

 

 The address of the loss location (street addresses only; P.O. Boxes and Parcel 

Numbers are not acceptable);3

 and 

 The name of all known insurance carriers providing property insurance coverage to 

the household members. 

Subrogation Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of the Complete List of Individual Plaintiffs to 

BrownGreer for import and matching to the existing BrownGreer Individual Plaintiff Database. 

 

2

 To include business entity Direct Plaintiffs, where applicable. 

3

 Where a property has no street address, Counsel or Law Firm shall provide the best available 

identifying information for that property. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 5

of 55
1

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

 5

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

B. Individual Plaintiffs Retained After Entry of CMO 5—Insurance Information 

Sharing 

For cases retained after entry of CMO 5, each Counsel or Law Firm with a case 

coordinated in JCCP 4955 shall submit an updated complete List of Individual Plaintiffs, whether 

filed or unfiled, who have retained Counsel or Law Firm in conjunction with claims arising out of 

a fire that is subject to JCCP 4955 every sixty (60) days to BrownGreer. The List shall include:

 The first name and last name of all adult members of each household (household 

defined as a group of Individual Plaintiffs suffering a loss associated with the same 

address); 

 The address of the loss location (street addresses only; P.O. Boxes and Parcel 

Numbers are not acceptable); and 

 The name of all known insurance carriers providing property insurance coverage to 

the household members. 

C. Subrogation Claim File Production Master Control Spreadsheet 

Subrogation Plaintiffs shall independently conduct a “matching” project between the List 

of Individual Plaintiffs and the Subrogation List of Claims to identify all property insurance 

claims related to each of the Individual Plaintiff households. Wherever a match is identified, 

Subrogation Plaintiffs will endeavor to link the List of Individual Plaintiffs with the Subrogation 

claim information for each household, and with the unique Individual Plaintiff Control Number 

and/or the Household Number assigned by BrownGreer.

Subrogation Plaintiffs shall create an initial matching spreadsheet called “Claim File 

Production Master Control” (“CFMC”). The CFMC shall combine and link information from the 

List of Individual Plaintiffs, the Subrogation List of Claims and the BrownGreer Individual 

Plaintiff Database as follows:

 Client information submitted by the Individual Plaintiff firms (client/household 

member names, loss address, carriers); 

 The corresponding BrownGreer Individual Plaintiff Control Number and/or 

Household Number; and 

 Insurance claim information matched to the Individual Plaintiff/Household, 

including Name of Insured, Carrier Name, Claim Number, Date of Loss (as 

reported to carrier), Loss Location Address, amount paid, open reserves (if any), 

and the status of adjustment of the claim by the carrier.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 6

of 55
1

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

 6

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

Upon completion, the initial CFMC will be provided to BrownGreer for import into a 

central data management system. The BrownGreer Portal will then become the central repository 

for management of all Individual Plaintiff data, including any insurance claim data provided by 

the Subrogation Plaintiffs. BrownGreer will provide the Subrogation Plaintiffs with access to the 

BrownGreer Portal to facilitate ongoing matching between Individual Plaintiff and Subrogation 

data.

 Subrogation Plaintiffs will update the paid and open reserves as well as claims 

status for all claims matched to Individual Plaintiffs in the BrownGreer Portal 

regularly, and no less frequently than every four (4) months.

 Upon completion of the initial matching process outlined above, Subrogation 

Plaintiffs will update the carrier data reported to the BrownGreer Portal to provide 

a breakdown of payments by coverage, to include payments under Building, 

Contents/Business Personal Property, Alternative Living Expenses/Business 

Interruption and Auto/Specialty. Once a coverage breakdown has been added to 

the BrownGreer Portal, all updates going forward will include a breakdown by 

coverage.

D. Individual Plaintiff Insurance Claim File Production 

The Subrogation Plaintiffs will produce claim files to BrownGreer as follows: 

 For any claim that has been matched to an Individual Plaintiff Household, the 

Subrogating Plaintiff will produce the closed claim file to BrownGreer once the 

claim has been closed for adjustment; and 

 BrownGreer will upload the claim file to the BrownGreer Portal and alert counsel, 

or the individual plaintiff (if pro se), by way of email notification, that counsel or 

pro se plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days to review the insurance claim file and 

object to its production and/or redact information from the production. As soon as 

representing counsel or the pro se plaintiff marks the claim file as “review 

complete”, the claim file will be made available to the Defendants through the 

BrownGreer Portal. Plaintiff shall upload into the BrownGreer Portal the approved 

version of the claim file for production to the Defendants. However, if no review is 

performed or objection made within twenty-one (21) days of email notification, 

then the insurance claim file will automatically be made available to the Defendants 

through the BrownGreer Portal as provided by Subrogating Plaintiff. 

E. Access to the BrownGreer Portal 

Each Individual Plaintiff, Subrogation Plaintiff, and Defendant shall establish a secure 

connection with the BrownGreer Portal by obtaining authorized user names and secure login 

passwords to permit use of BrownGreer Portal by counsel. 

Each Plaintiff shall continue to use the BrownGreer Portal to request, obtain, complete, or 

upload any required data, and serve the appropriate CMO 1 and 2 compliance information online 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 7

of 55
1

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

 7

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

(including uploading PDFs or other electronic images, photographs and videos of any records 

required). Liaison Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs shall continue to work with BrownGreer to 

ensure CMO compliance and will continue to view, search and download non-confidential 

materials submitted to the BrownGreer Portal. Finally, the Court may establish a secure 

connection with the BrownGreer Portal by obtaining an authorized user name and secure login 

password to permit use of the BrownGreer Portal by the Court. 

Except as set forth herein, Counsel for plaintiffs and each pro se plaintiff shall be 

permitted to view, search and download on the BrownGreer Portal those materials submitted by 

that Plaintiff and by Defendants relating to that Plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsels shall 

maintain administrative access co-equal with BrownGreer to manage data and to facilitate 

communications consistent with the purposes of this order. 

IV. PRODUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF CASE-SPECIFIC DAMAGES 

INFORMATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEDURES RELATING TO 

BELLWETHER AND PREFERENCE CASES 

A. CMO 1: NOA – Plaintiff-Specific Information. 

Each filed SFC and NOA includes 21 enumerated categories of damages suffered by a 

particular plaintiff or Individual Plaintiff Household. That list of damage categories must be 

completed by each Individual Plaintiff Household. 

The original purposes for the use of the NOA/SFC and the stay on damages discovery were 

to balance the need for information and the difficult burdens on fire victims.4

 Both Individual 

Plaintiffs and PG&E conveyed this sentiment to the court at the first case management conference 

on February 27, 2018. (See Hearing Transcript pp. 31:8-33:20.) 

In order to address these concerns, and in keeping with the spirit of the CMO 1 stay of 

damages discovery, Individual Plaintiffs’ Lead and Liaison Counsel and PG&E propose that each 

individual plaintiff shall be required to confirm the actual damage categories that apply to that 

plaintiff’s specific case. This confirmation is herein referred to as the “CMO Compliance 

 

4

 PG&E reserves the right to move to lift the stay on damages discovery, either generally or as to a 

specific firm, following meet and confer. Plaintiffs’ leadership reserves the right to oppose any 

lifting of the stay on damage discovery. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 8

of 55
1

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

 8

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

Information” and shall be submitted by each Individual Plaintiff to the BrownGreer Portal. The 

parties have agreed to use the BrownGreer Portal to hold such information. 

Each individual plaintiff whose case has been coordinated in JCCP 4955 before the entry 

of CMO 5 shall submit the CMO Compliance Information to the BrownGreer Portal within 30 

days of the entry of CMO 5. Each individual plaintiff whose case is coordinated in JCCP 4955 

after entry of CMO 5 shall have 30 days from the entry of the order granting coordination of that 

plaintiff’s case in which to submit the CMO Compliance Information to the BrownGreer Portal. 

Service of completed CMO Compliance Information shall be deemed to occur when the 

submitting party has performed each of the steps required by the BrownGreer Portal to execute the 

online submission of the materials, and the submitting party has received confirmation on screen 

that the materials have been successfully submitted.

B. Trial Selection: CMO 4 

1. Atlas Fire 

Following the October 25, 2018 case management conference and the entry of CMO 4, the 

parties have met and conferred regarding the case selection procedures for the first Bellwether 

trial. The parties agree that the Court set for trial a group of claims representing the majority of 

the types of claims that will be presented by average or typical plaintiffs in the litigation as a 

whole. The parties have agreed to ten separate categories of claimants, each of which holds one or 

more of the following types of claims: 

1. Wrongful death 

2. Personal injury 

3. Total loss of home on property larger than 5 acres 

4. Total loss of home on property smaller than 5 acres 

5. Partial loss/non-total damage to home 

6. Commercial loss to non-winery 

7. Commercial loss to winery/vineyard 

8. Loss/displacement of renter/tenant with destruction of personal property 

9. Damage/destruction to raw land without loss of home 

10. Smoke and soot 

In order to select the 15 plaintiffs for trial under CMO 4, the plaintiffs will present 20 cases to 

PG&E for review with the completed CMO Compliance Information from the BrownGreer Portal 

for each of these plaintiffs. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 9

of 55
1

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

 9

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

Lead Counsel for Public Entities continues to meet and confer with Leadership and 

Defense counsel regarding public entity bellwether participation in the September 23, 2019 Atlas 

trial. Counsel plans to fully brief the issue in preparation for the January 25, 2019 Case 

Management Conference but has raised during meet and confer conversation the prospect of 

including Napa County in the subject Atlas trial as a means to understanding public entity 

valuation. 

2. Sulphur Fire 

CMO 4 provides for a Bellwether process relating to the Atlas Trial. The parties have 

already presented to this Court briefing and oral argument relating to the Bellwether Trial 

Selection procedures. The Singleton Plaintiffs have requested an all-issues trial of 5-10 cases for 

late June, 2019, for the Sulphur Fire. PG&E opposes the request. PG&E notes that the Court has 

already set two prior Case Management Conferences to address the scheduling of the nonpreference trial. The Singleton Plaintiffs already requested this and the Court rejected this 

approach. It is inappropriate to re-litigate the issues that have been previously litigated here. 

C. Preference Cases and Preference Protocol 

PG&E and leadership for Individual Plaintiffs recognize that there may be a number of 

individuals who believe they may qualify for preference trials and that such trials may relate to 

any number of the various fires that are subject to this coordinated proceeding. In an effort to 

manage the process around the filing of preference claims, PG&E and leadership for Individual 

Plaintiffs and Subrogation Plaintiffs have negotiated a protocol for the evaluation of preference 

claims, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. This protocol has been modeled much like the one 

that was entered in certain cases concerning fires outside of PG&E’s service territory (i.e., the 

Southern California fire cases) and is consistent with the case realities that have presented 

themselves in other catastrophic mass tort litigation before this Court. To the extent any attorney 

representing an Individual Plaintiff in this case believes it is appropriate to file a motion for 

preference trial settings under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 36, such attorney must 

utilize the mechanisms identified in the Order regarding Preference Protocol entered 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 10

of 55
1

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

 10

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

simultaneously with this Order. To the extent that a proposed plaintiff preference request has a 

corresponding Subrogation claim, Subrogation Leadership will be included and consulted as well. 

The Preference Protocol agreed to by leadership for the parties is presented as proposed CMO 6. 

V. RESPONSE TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT FOR 

CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIIFFS 

On the afternoon of Friday, December 21, the Singleton firm presented PG&E and counsel 

for the various plaintiff groups an 11-page PDF statement with instructions to attach that 

document to the Joint CMC Statement.5 Given that the Joint Statement would be filed on 

Christmas Eve, the submission left the parties essentially no time to actually meet and confer. The 

PDF statement followed a week of requests for the Singleton firm’s substantive positions and a 

December 20 letter from PG&E documenting the firm’s failure to meet and confer. Finally, the 

PEC sent a written statement to the Singleton firm and all counsel on December 21: 

“We take seriously the meet and confer requirements of the court. We would have liked to 

have the opportunity to review your positions and to present the issues to the PEC, PSC 

and to all counsel. 

Over 50 law firms in this litigation are proceeding in cooperation towards common 

litigation goals. No firm’s clients or lawyers’ interests are more important than any others 

in this case. 

We have asked for your submission for a week. It is now the Friday before Christmas Eve 

and we have received nothing other than statements asking to relitigate issues or seeking a 

separate special arrangement for your firm.” (Email from K. Baghdadi to Gary LoCurto 

and Frank Pitre, et al. dated 12/21/2018) 

This Court asked for a single submission with all parties’ positions included. (Oct. 25, 

2018 Status Conference Transcript, 18:15 – 19:4) In light of this procedural history, the 

Singleton submission violates the Court’s instructions at the last hearing. 

A. PG&E’s Response 

While one Plaintiff in the Singleton Group has filed a motion seeking statutory preference, 

the bulk of the requests now made by the Singleton Group are much broader and were explicitly 

 

5

 The Singleton Firm submission is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 11

of 55
1

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

 11

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

designed to allow this one group of Plaintiffs—who have claims related to many different fires and 

share nothing in common other than the fact that they are represented by the same lawyer—to 

disengage completely from the rest of the thousands of parties to these coordinated proceedings. If 

the Singleton Group were to succeed in their efforts, they would in effect create two different 

JCCPs—one for all of the Plaintiffs represented by Gerald Singleton and one for everyone else.6 

The Singleton Group’s submission is a direct attack on the concept of coordination and this 

Court’s Coordination Order and should be rejected. Allowing the Singleton Group to separate from 

the overall coordinated proceedings would not only be grossly inefficient, it would also prejudice 

the rights of PG&E and the thousands of other claimants who are part of the coordinated proceeding. 

As the Court is aware, there are dozens of different law firms representing the thousands of 

Individual Plaintiffs who have suffered losses in connection with the North Bay Fires. With the 

exception of the Singleton Group, these lawyers are working together efficiently and effectively 

through Plaintiffs’ Leadership, which is in turn working with PG&E to move the entire coordinated 

proceeding on a path toward resolution. The Singleton Group has made no showing as to why it 

needs to be treated differently and be permitted to pursue its own path divorced from all of the 

procedures in place to protect the due process rights of all involved. 

In fact, this effort to disrupt the entire coordinated proceeding appears to be nothing more 

than an attempt by one lawyer to elevate the interests of a small subset of the overall parties above 

all others and jump to the front of the line. The Singleton Group has not been coy about this desire. 

Instead, the Singleton Group has adamantly refused to even be part of the mediation process that 

PG&E and Individual Plaintiffs’ Leadership has established as a result of discussions with the Court 

at prior Case Management Conferences (“CMC”). The Singleton Group has insisted on pursuing 

 

6

 Although it may be the case that certain trials do need to move forward given a particular 

Plaintiff’s statutory rights, that is a completely different issue than permitting a subset of 

Individual Plaintiffs to separate themselves entirely from the coordinated proceedings regardless 

of whether they are entitled to any preference. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 12

of 55
1

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

 12

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

this path of inefficiency while offering to drop it entirely—including all preference motions—if 

PG&E will agree to mediate these Plaintiffs’ claims separate from everyone else’s claims. 

As the Court is aware, the primary charge to the Coordination Judge is to “manag[e] all steps 

of the pretrial, discovery and trial proceedings to expedite the just determination of the coordinated 

actions without delay”. (Rule of Court 3.541(b).) To achieve this goal, the Coordination Judge is 

“vest[ed]” with “whatever great breadth of discretion may be necessary and appropriate to ease the 

transition through the judicial system of the logjam of cases which gives rise to coordination”. 

(McGhan Med. Corp. v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. App. 4th 804, 812 (1992); id. at 813 (“One of the 

purposes, in our view, of a centralized coordinating authority is to vest in one administrator the 

power to organize the litigation in an efficient and equitable manner, for the benefit of all.”).) 

One way in which the Coordination Judge is authorized to manage the coordinated actions 

efficiently is by appointing liaison counsel to act on behalf of each side included in the coordinated 

proceeding. (Rule of Court 3.506(a).) This Court has chosen to appoint Lead Counsel for each 

group represented in this coordinated proceeding, and has clearly established the roles and 

responsibilities of such groups. (See CMO No. 1 at 1-10.) The Singleton Group should not be 

entitled to derail this entire process—which is working effectively for the other thousands of 

claimants and PG&E—by making separate discovery and trial requests that will apply only to a 

limited group of claimants. To create separate litigation tracks for certain groups of Plaintiffs will 

simply delay the entire process and will jeopardize the parties’ ability to reach the earliest resolution 

of the totality of Plaintiffs’ claims. 

Given the overall scope of these proceedings, it simply is not enough for the Singleton Group 

to complain that there has been some delay by requiring them to work through Plaintiffs’ Leadership 

(a claim that is nothing more than an unsupported assertion). Where certain counsel participating 

in a coordinated proceeding have likewise complained that coordination may cause delay to the 

detriment of those particular counsel, the Court of Appeal has stated that although “[i]t is possible 

that some delay in certain cases may be experienced[,] [w]e view this potential detriment to the few 

to be a modest price to pay for the efficiency to be gained by the majority of cases through 

coordination.” McGhan, 11 Cal. App. 4th at 813. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 13

of 55
1

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

 13

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

1. Request To Set A Date For The Sulphur Trial. 

The Singleton Group has renewed their request for a Sulphur fire bellwether trial in 2019. 

This Court should once again reject that request. Prior to the October 25 CMC, the Singleton Group 

submitted a proposal asking for a Sulphur fire bellwether trial to be set for March or April of 2019. 

At the CMC, both Plaintiffs’ Leadership and PG&E opposed the Singleton Group’s proposal, 

arguing that the Sulphur fire would not be appropriate for the first bellwether trial given its limited 

impact compared to the Tubbs and Atlas fires. (10/25/18 CMC Tr. 23:25-24:7 (Individual Plaintiffs’ 

Leadership stating that “[f]or a host of reasons, it was determined by the larger group, including 

subrogation and the public entities, that it was not going to be helpful in moving the litigation 

forward toward resolution”; id. 40:24-41:13 (PG&E arguing that given the Sulphur fire’s limited 

damages, it has “no chance of moving the needle” with respect to settlement).) Although PG&E 

understands that the Sulphur fire and the damage it caused is tragic for those who were impacted, 

as the Singleton Group acknowledges, the Sulphur fire destroyed only approximately 160 structures, 

whereas the Tubbs fire and Atlas fire destroyed over 5,600 and 780, respectively. Moreover, unlike 

the Tubbs fire and the Atlas fire, the Sulphur fire did not involve any fatalities. For these very 

reasons, this Court agreed that the Sulphur fire was not appropriate to try first. (See CMO No. 4 at 

2:1-6 (rejecting Sulphur fire as candidate for a bellwether trial and noting the Sulphur fire “does not 

contain all the issues presentable in the other fires, such as a death case, and involves a relatively 

few number of structures”.) Nothing relevant has changed since October. 

PG&E also continues to disagree with the Singleton Group’s characterization of the Sulphur 

fire as a “straightforward” case as well as their conclusory statement that merely because the case 

allegedly involves pole failure it will require less written discovery, depositions or experts than the 

other cases. Even if it is true that the Sulphur fire allegedly does not implicate PG&E’s vegetation 

management program, that serves as another reason to deny the Singleton Group’s request according 

to this Court’s reasoning. In selecting the Atlas fire over the Tubbs fire, this Court reasoned that the 

Atlas fire should be tried first in part because the Atlas fire allegedly involves vegetation to 

powerline contact, “which may be common to the other fires”. (Id. at 2:22-25.) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 14

of 55
1

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

 14

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

Further, PG&E does not believe that a Sulphur fire trial will be as short as the Singleton 

Group claims. The Singleton Group’s estimated number of witnesses fails to include: 

 any percipient witnesses, either from PG&E or potential third party eyewitnesses; 

 any first responders; 

 a complete list of “corporate” witnesses to discuss PG&E’s policies and practices 

related to wildfire risk mitigation, pole integrity and electric operations; 

 any damages experts, which will be needed for each of the (at least) six categories of 

damages the Singleton Group proposes including in the trial; or 

 any experts at all to testify for PG&E. 

By PG&E’s estimation, at the very least, a Sulphur trial will take four to six weeks to complete. 

Finally, slotting a Sulphur fire trial into the queue prior to the Atlas fire trial that this Court 

previously scheduled for September 23, 2019 would be prejudicial to PG&E. Plaintiffs’ Leadership, 

which is responsible for the coordinated action on behalf of thousands of Individual Plaintiffs, as 

well as over 200 Subrogation Plaintiffs and several Public Entity Plaintiffs, advocated for an Atlas 

fire trial in September. Plaintiffs have served extensive discovery on PG&E (including over 2000 

Requests for Production and approximately 650 interrogatories) and have represented to the Court 

that they will complete any necessary discovery and prepare for a trial by September 2019. Given 

the parties’ focus on preparing for an Atlas fire trial, PG&E should not now be asked to also focus 

its efforts on preparing for an earlier trial date related to yet another fire, particularly where the 

Singleton Group is not alleging they are entitled to statutory preference. In addition to the Atlas 

fire, PG&E may need to prepare for a Lobo fire statutory preference trial, as well as continue to 

respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and deposition notices related to the generalized corporate 

discovery that will be required for the Atlas fire trial. Plaintiffs’ Leadership and PG&E have been 

expending significant efforts on preparing for the Atlas fire trial. To date, there has been only one 

deposition related to the Sulphur fire, and PG&E anticipates that many more will be required before 

this case can proceed to trial. For PG&E to split its focus now, only ten months before the Atlas 

fire trial is scheduled to commence, will cause significant prejudice and may require a delay in the 

Atlas fire trial date. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 15

of 55
1

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

 15

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

2. Request To Conduct Preference Discovery. 

The Singleton Group proposes that they be permitted to conduct discovery related to any 

Lobo fire preference trial that may be granted outside of the structure ordered by the Court in CMO 

No. 1. PG&E opposes this request. Ms. Fowler, who is represented by the Singleton Law Firm, 

has chosen to file a preference motion and to have her trial held in an expedited fashion. There are 

presumably many other Plaintiffs who potentially qualify for statutory preference who have, instead, 

reasonably chosen to wait until the parties complete the discovery process before requesting a trial 

date. PG&E cannot shift all of the general corporate discovery to an expedited track. 

To the extent there are Lobo-specific issues on which Ms. Fowler needs additional discovery 

for purposes of the preference trial, those narrow requests can be made through the existing 

Plaintiffs’ Leadership process. It is not clear that any additional discovery related to the Lobo fire 

will even be necessary for Ms. Fowler to proceed, given that Plaintiffs have served over 100 

Requests for Production, almost 40 Interrogatories and approximately 30 Requests for Admission 

related specifically to the Lobo fire. If Ms. Fowler believes that Plaintiffs’ Leadership has refused 

to permit Ms. Fowler to take discovery on critical, Lobo-specific issues, Ms. Fowler may seek relief 

from the Court. But the fact that Ms. Fowler has filed a claim for statutory preference should not 

derail the discovery process, which has been running through Plaintiffs’ Leadership at the Court’s 

express direction. 

3. Request For Separate Track. 

This request is a frontal assault on the very structure of the coordinated proceeding. PG&E 

opposes the Singleton Group’s request to essentially dismantle the coordinated proceeding and 

create a separate litigation track for this particular group of Individual Plaintiffs. As stated in Section 

V.A, supra, to create separate tracks for certain individual claimants would not only be grossly 

inefficient, but will also prejudice the rights of PG&E and the thousands of other claimants who are 

part of the coordinated proceeding. 

In concluding that this was a complex case, this Court, acting as the Coordination Motion 

Judge, found that these proceedings “require[] exceptional judicial management to avoid placing 

unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case”. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 16

of 55
1

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

 16

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

§ 3.400(a).) This Court therefore correctly determined that coordination was appropriate for the 

thousands of individual claimants, hundreds of subrogation insurers and multiple public entities who 

are participating in this proceeding. In making that determination, this Court noted that because of 

“the substantial overlap as among the PG&E witnesses and documents, as well as the experts” as 

well as “common discovery and motion practice across all of the fires relating to PG&E’s policies 

and practices” and “common legal questions relating to inverse condemnation and other matters”, 

there were “benefits that c[ould] only be achieved through a single coordinated proceeding”. (1/4/18 

Order Granting Petitions for Coordination and Staying Cases 4-5.) Indeed, this Court stated that to 

split these cases into separate proceedings would “cause unnecessary procedural delays”. (Id. at 6.) 

This is even more true today, one year into the coordinated proceeding, where the parties have been 

working through the Leadership groups to bring motions, complete discovery and move all of the 

cases, in the entire coordinated proceeding, on a path to resolution. 

Because the Singleton Group wants to jump to the front of the line, they are asking this Court 

to take action that would jeopardize the goals set forth in the governing law as well as the progress 

that the parties have made in the last year to resolve this proceeding. This simply should not be 

permitted for the reasons set forth in Section V.A, supra. (See, e.g., McGhan, 11 Cal. App. 4th at 

813 (“One of the purposes, in our view, of a centralized coordinating authority is to vest in one 

administrator the power to organize the litigation in an efficient and equitable manner, for the benefit 

of all.”); id. (“It is possible that some delay in certain cases may be experienced. We view this 

potential detriment to the few to be a modest price to pay for the efficiency to be gained by the 

majority of cases through coordination.”).) 

4. Request to File Motion to Compel Regarding Cal Fire Reports and to 

Inspect Physical Evidence. 

The Singleton Group is seeking leave to file a motion to compel the Cal Fire reports and 

access to the physical evidence in Cal Fire’s possession. As an initial matter, PG&E strongly 

disagrees with the Singleton Group that the Cal Fire reports are “an import[ant] tool to further the 

discovery process”. Indeed, such reports should be inadmissible. Plaintiffs’ Leadership also agrees 

that the Cal Fire reports are not important. (9/21/18 CMC Tr. 30:1-2 (Mr. Kelly, on behalf of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 17

of 55
1

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

 17

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

Individual Plaintiffs, stating “[i]t’s not the reports; it’s the evidence” that is important); id. at 45:24-

25 (Mr. Baghdadi, on behalf of Individual Plaintiffs, again stating “I don’t think there’s 

disagreement [with PG&E]. It’s the evidence. It’s not the reports.”).) With respect to the physical 

evidence in Cal Fire’s possession, although PG&E agrees that getting to inspect such evidence is 

important, there is already a process underway to get the parties access to such evidence, and 

therefore the Singleton Group’s proposed motion to compel is unnecessary, inefficient and a waste 

of this Court’s resources. 

As Plaintiffs’ Leadership stated at the October 25 CMC, with respect to the fires that were 

not referred to a district attorney’s office, the parties have an agreement with the Attorney General 

to get the Cal Fire reports and access to the evidence. The parties received those reports on 

November 13, 2018. The parties also sent a proposed evidence transportation and storage protocol 

to the Attorney General to review and expect to move forward with that process shortly. 

With respect to the fires that were referred to a district attorney’s office, the parties have 

been working with the Attorney General and the relevant District Attorneys to get access to the 

reports and physical evidence related to those fires. Several of the District Attorneys have already 

agreed to permit the parties access to the physical evidence, and Plaintiffs’ Leadership is finalizing 

the inspection details with the Attorney General. To file a motion to compel now would be a waste 

of the Court’s and the parties’ resources. The relevant governing authority has been working 

productively with PG&E and Plaintiffs’ Leadership and this motion is not necessary. 

B. Individual Plaintiffs’ Response 

The timing and tenor of the Singleton submission is a studied exercise in disruption. 

Moreover, this refusal to work collaboratively has become manifest in the Southern California fire 

cases before Judge Buckley and in the Butte Fire in Amador and Calaveras Counties cases.7

 It is 

 

7

 The Singleton firm has been removed from the PSC in Butte, voted off of the PSC in the 

Northern California fire cases, and the Court denied the firm a leadership position in Southern 

California Fire cases. In all cases, the firm sought a “separate track” for his firm, and refused to 

comply with Case Management Orders. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 18

of 55
1

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

 18

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

contrary to the long history of successful collaboration in JCCP cases. 

1. Liability Discovery 

The California JCCPs are known nationally for the cooperation and coordination among 

the plaintiffs, the ability of nationally recognized counsel to review millions of pages of 

documents, conduct hundreds of liability depositions, prepare exceptional experts across multiple 

scientific disciplines, and the ability to try cases to obtain positive results. Over the last 25 years, 

lawyers from all over the country, from both sides, have come to California to work with 

California leadership within the JCCP system to address and resolve cases on the merits. With 

respect to the plaintiffs’ interests, the mark of the JCCP courts and plaintiffs’ leadership has been 

inclusion. The test for inclusion in these efforts is simple: performance of substantive work for the 

benefit of all plaintiffs. The ability to market for cases, make litigation threats or cause other 

disruptions has no place within real litigation efforts; especially within a JCCP, which usually 

involves hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs. This case is no different. 

This is one of the most significant JCCP’s in California history. The fires that have 

devastated Northern California have killed and injured over one-hundred people and claimed the 

homes, personal property and businesses of tens of thousands. The PEC and PSC in this litigation 

has undertaken the document review to address corporate responsibility as it relates to each fire 

and across all fires. This liability discovery is critical. Along with subrogation, the PEC and PSC 

have taken all of the liability depositions thus far and have conducted the ESI work for the benefit 

of all plaintiffs. The PEC and PSC and counsel for the public entities have worked cooperatively 

with the governmental entities to obtain the documents and evidence while allowing the 

government to fulfill its function as well. 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 19

of 55
1

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

 19

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

2. There is No Need for a Separate Track for Any Firm 

The coordination process cannot work if a single firm is permitted to ignore the procedures 

designed to make sure all plaintiffs have access to the time and resources of the Court. Several 

dozen firms have worked together in an organized fashion, recognizing that doing so may not 

yield the fastest result for any one of them. This approach has by all accounts gone extremely well 

with all counsel. The plaintiffs have been able to achieve over 99% compliance with CMO 1 with 

all firms and now all firms are in essential compliance with CMO 2. The systems in place for 

exchanging information is working. There is nothing about a single law firm that warrants a need 

to carve out a separate Case Management process. 

3. Preferential Trial Setting and Other Trial Settings. 

As expected, there are several dozen individuals whose cases may be eligible for 

preferential trial setting. Lawyers in over 30 cases have provided to leadership case specific 

information supporting a preferential trial setting. The PEC expects dozens more. The setting of 

preference cases is a critical component that allows cases be resolved on the merits. Plaintiffs 

leadership strongly believes that all plaintiffs should be on equal footing and have the right to 

participate in presentation of their specific preference cases. To that end, all firms in this case 

were invited to complete a preference questionnaire. The Singleton firm has refused to cooperate 

with that effort. 

Almost all of the firms in this litigation are working for the benefit of all of the plaintiffs 

given the devastation that has occurred. This catastrophic situation should not result in a race to 

the filing of motions. 8 This is especially true if the preference trial demand is made contingent on 

 

8

 The Singleton firm has now put in writing that they are bringing 17 preference cases to be 

tried in mid-2019 (eight in Northern California and nine in Southern California.) They also seek a 

Sulphur setting, which the court addressed at the last status conference. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 20

of 55
1

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

 20

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

an agreement by the defendant to create a separate mediation track for one firm’s clients. As 

PG&E states in its submission: “The Singleton Group has insisted on pursuing this path of 

inefficiency while offering to drop it entirely—including all preference motions—if PG&E will 

agree to mediate these Plaintiffs’ claims separate from everyone else’s claims.”9 It is a dangerous 

precedent to let the disconnected and seemingly frantic mediation energies of one lawyer spill over 

into the litigation of the actual cases. The litigation plan must be connected to the actual litigation 

realities. For example, there is significant corporate liability discovery that remains to be 

completed including basic ESI, document review, corporate risk management, as well as origin 

and cause depositions. The lawyers conducting that work are best positioned to work out trial 

strategy based upon a goal trial success for the benefit of plaintiffs. 

4. Cal-Fire 

Plaintiffs’ leadership has worked since the end of September with CAL Fire, by way of the 

Attorney General’s Office, to obtain access to all evidence, reports, and investigative materials 

related to the North Bay Fires. The Attorney General’s Office has assigned two lawyers to 

interface with plaintiffs’ leadership on the North Bay Fires, and they have been extremely 

responsive and are working diligently to get leadership access to the reports and physical evidence 

quickly as possible. 

The Camp Fire and the Woolsey Fire placed significant burdens on CAL Fire and 

demanded that resources that otherwise would have been available to coordinate with plaintiffs’ 

 

9

   Every firm has the right to request mediation or to attempt to resolve their cases individually. A 

capable firm can contribute substantively to the ESI work, the document production and review, the 

corporate liability depositions, the experts, the trial preparation and trial work with the rest of the firms if 

settlement efforts do not succeed. However, the disruption of positive litigation progress as a technique to 

demand a separate mediation track is not productive.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 21

of 55
1

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

 21

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

litigation efforts, were diverted to imminent, lifesaving duties for several weeks. Despite this 

necessary and understandable delay, the plaintiffs have made significant progress. 

Additionally, the Attorney General and CAL Fire are not the only decision makers 

involved. The District Attorneys of each county where a North Bay Fire occurred has a claim to 

official information privilege related to the fire in their county that has been referred for criminal 

prosecution. This includes six different counties and district attorney’s offices: Nevada County, 

Mendocino County, Lake County, Humboldt County, Napa County, and Sonoma County. 

Plaintiffs’ leadership had to seek agreement from these District Attorneys as well as the Attorney 

General and CAL Fire to get access to evidence and reports. Leadership has done so, and is only 

awaiting agreement from two Counties, Nevada and Mendocino. All other counties have agreed to 

allow access. 

In sum, the following agreements have been reached to date: Plaintiffs have access to all 

CAL Fire reports and investigative materials for all North Bay Fires except McCourtney, Lobo 

and Redwood Fires. All reports for unreferred fires have already been produced. Reports for 

Sulphur, Atlas, Honey, Cherokee, Blue, Norrbom, Adobe, Partrick, Pythian, Nuns, 37, and Pocket 

are currently being reviewed and prepared for production. The Cascade Fire report alone had 25 

exhibits, including one exhibit with over 300 audio recordings. Each must be reviewed prior to 

production. CAL Fire has also agreed to produce reports for the McCourtney, Lobo and Redwood 

Fires if the District Attorney’s Office agrees. Plaintiffs’ leadership has sent correspondence to 

those District Attorneys but have not received a response yet. Of note, the Tubbs Fire is the one 

North Bay Fire that is not contemplated by any of the agreements above since there is no CAL 

Fire report at this time. 

5. Remedy 

 Issues within the plaintiff group should be addressed within the plaintiff group. All 

counsel should have the right to participate. The meet and confer should NOT take place in the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 22

of 55
1

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

 22

JOINT SUB. RE PROPOSED CMOS 5 AND 6 RE INDIVID. CASES INCL.: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE 

SPECIFIC DISC., PROD. OF CLAIM FILES, AND TRIAL SELECTION AND PREF. MTNS - JCCP No. 4955

status conference statement. The parties have made real progress in moving this case forward 

since the October 25th status conference. The fact that over half of the submission is responsive to 

this untimely and misguided filing is telling. 

Dated: December 24, 2018 WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER

By: /s/ Michael A. Kelly

 MICHAEL A. KELLY 

Attorneys for Individual Plaintiffs 

Dated: December 24 , 2018 BERGER KAHN

By: /s/ Craig Simon 

 CRAIG SIMON 

Attorneys for Subrogation Plaintiffs

Dated: December 24, 2018 SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH LLP 

By: /s/ Steven J. Skikos 

 STEVEN J. SKIKOS 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: December 24, 2018 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

By: /s/ Kevin J. Orsini 

 KEVIN J. ORSINI 

Attorneys for Defendants Pacific Gas & Electric 

Company and PG&E Corporation

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 23

of 55
EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 24

of 55
1

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

 1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

MICHAEL A. KELLY (SB #71460) 

mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com 

KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI (SB #190111) 

kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com 

WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & 

SCHOENBERGER

650 California Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 981-7210 

FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077) 

fpitre@cpmlegal.com 

ALISON E. CORDOVA (SBN 284942) 

acordova@cpmlegal.com 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY 

San Francisco Airport Office Center 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010 

Telephone: (650) 697-6000

STEVEN SKIKOS (SB #148110)

sskikos@skikos.com 

SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, ET AL.

1 Sansome Street, Ste 2830 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 546-7300 

ON BEHALF OF DIRECT PLAINTIFFS

EVAN R. CHESLER (pro hac vice) 

echesler@cravath.com 

TIMOTHY G. CAMERON (pro hac vice) 

tcameron@cravath.com 

KEVIN J. ORSINI (pro hac vice) 

korsini@cravath.com 

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (212) 474-1000 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS 

CRAIG S. SIMON (SB #78158) 

csimon@bergerkahn.com 

BERGER KAHN, A Law Corporation 

1 Park Plaza, Suite 340 

Irvine, CA 92614 

Telephone: (949) 474-1880 

ON BEHALF OF SUBROGATION PLAINTIFFS 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Coordination Proceeding 

Special Title (Rule 3.550) 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES 

 JCCP No. 4955 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER 5 RE: 

COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION OF 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

COMPLIANCE INFORMATION AND 

SUBROGATION FILES 

Assigned for All Purposes to: 

Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow, Dept. 304

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

The parties, by and through Individual Plaintiffs’ Lead and Liaison Counsel, Lead Counsel 

for Subrogation, and Counsel for Defendant PG&E, hereby reach the following stipulation as to 

the further handling of case specific issues which includes the production of subrogation claim 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 25

of 55
1

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

files (CMO 1) and several case management order compliance issues including filing procedures 

(CMO 1), identification and confirmation of damage claims (CMO 1), liability discovery from 

individual plaintiffs or witnesses identified by individual plaintiffs (CMO 2). 

STIPULATION 

PG&E, Lead and Liaison Counsel for Individual and Subrogation Plaintiffs agree to the 

following Order in relation to the collection and production of case management order compliance 

information and subrogation claim files. 

So stipulated: 

Dated: December 24 , 2018 WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER

By: /s/ Michael A. Kelly

 MICHAEL A. KELLY 

Attorneys for Individual Plaintiffs 

Dated: December 24, 2018 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

By: /s/ Kevin J. Orsini 

 KEVIN J. ORSINI 

Attorneys for Defendants Pacific Gas & Electric 

Company and PG&E Corporation

Dated: December 24, 2018 COTCHETT PITRI & MCCARTHY LLP 

By: /s/ Frank M. Pitri 

 FRANK M. PITRI 

Attorneys for Individual Plaintiffs 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 26

of 55
1

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

Dated: December 24, 2018 BERGER KAHN, A LAW CORPORATION

By: /s/ Craig S. Simon 

 CRAIG S. SIMON 

Attorneys for Subrogation Plaintiffs PURE 

Insurance Company, California FAIR Plan 

Association, et al.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow 

Judge of the Superior Court 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 27

of 55
1

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

1

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5: COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION OF CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER COMPLIANCE INFORMATION AND SUBROGATION FILES

MICHAEL A. KELLY (SB #71460)

mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com

KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI (SB #190111)

kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY &

SCHOENBERGER

650 California Street, 26th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108

Telephone: (415) 981-7210

FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077)

fpitre@cpmlegal.com

ALISON E. CORDOVA (SBN 284942)

acordova@cpmlegal.com

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY

San Francisco Airport Office Center

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

Telephone: (650) 697-6000

STEVEN SKIKOS (SB #148110)

sskikos@skikos.com

SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, ET AL.

1 Sansome Street, Ste 2830

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 546-7300

ON BEHALF OF DIRECT PLAINTIFFS

EVAN R. CHESLER (pro hac vice)

echesler@cravath.com

TIMOTHY G. CAMERON (pro hac vice)

tcameron@cravath.com

KEVIN J. ORSINI (pro hac vice)

korsini@cravath.com

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (212) 474-1000

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

CRAIG S. SIMON (SB #78158)

csimon@bergerkahn.com

BERGER KAHN, A Law Corporation

1 Park Plaza, Suite 340

Irvine, CA 92614

Telephone: (949) 474-1880

ON BEHALF OF SUBROGATION PLAINTIFFS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Coordination Proceeding

Special Title (Rule 3.550)

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES

JCCP No. 4955

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT

ORDER 5: COLLECTION AND

PRODUCTION OF CASE

MANAGEMENT ORDER COMPLIANCE

INFORMATION AND SUBROGATION

FILES

Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow, Dept. 304

This Case Management Order establishes the obligations of the Parties and their vendor,

BrownGreer, PLC, to collect and organize case-specific information in a central repository in

order to facilitate and track compliance with previously established Case Management Orders in

this JCCP.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 28

of 55
1

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

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5: COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION OF CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER COMPLIANCE INFORMATION AND SUBROGATION FILES

I. PROCEDURE FOR IMPROVING THE TRACKING OF COMPLIANCE WITH

CASE FILING REQUIREMENTS

A. Application to All Cases and Counsel

These provisions apply to any Individual Plaintiff whose case has been transferred to JCCP

4955 as of the entry of this Order, and to any Individual Plaintiff whose case is transferred to

JCCP 4955 after entry of this Order.

B. CMO 1 Requirements: Notice of Adoption/Short Form Complaint

In order to track compliance with Case Management Orders, including CMO 1, the

Individual Plaintiffs retained BrownGreer PLC (“BrownGreer”) to manage and control all of the

case-specific data relating to JCCP 4995. Under the supervision of Individual Plaintiffs’ Lead and

Liaison counsel, BrownGreer has reviewed and uploaded all of the Notices of Adoption and Short

Form Complaints into a database, referred to hereinafter as the BrownGreer Portal.

In the interests of maintaining an orderly and complete list of Plaintiffs who have adopted

the Master Complaint for the benefit of the Court, BrownGreer shall provide a Notice of Adoption

Report to the Court on a regular basis, or upon request from the Court. This report will include the

name of each plaintiff who has adopted the Master Complaint by virtue of serving an NOA or by

filing an SFC, as well as: the name of the primary law firm representing the plaintiff; the fire or

fires alleged to have caused injuries to the plaintiff or plaintiff household; the docket case number;

and the NOA/SFC case number, hereinafter “Household Number”.

1 The provision of these Notice

of Adoption Reports will not obviate, limit, or otherwise affect plaintiffs’ pleading obligations

under CMO 1.

To assist lead counsel in tracking information pertaining to compliance with case filing

requirements, going forward, any individual plaintiff who seeks to initiate litigation may do so

initially through the BrownGreer Portal, which provides the means to submit basic individual

plaintiff information as well as an interactive form for the preparation of an NOA or an SFC. The

 

1 Household Number will be used synonymously with the Notice of Adoption Complaint Number.

This unique identifier will be used to capture the claims of all plaintiffs who file together under

one NOA/SFC per CMO 1, including individuals, as well as business entities.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 29

of 55
1

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

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5: COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION OF CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER COMPLIANCE INFORMATION AND SUBROGATION FILES

BrownGreer Portal will also assign the Individual Plaintiff(s) with a Household Number, which

shall be used on the SFC and NOA of the Master Complaint.

C. Amended Service Requirements for NOAs/SFCs

The service requirements contained in CMO 1, which apply to service of SFCs and NOAs

are hereby amended to include the following. Each Direct Action Plaintiff who files and/or effects

service of an SFC and/or NOA after entry of this Order shall concomitantly serve the SFC and/or

NOA on BrownGreer by email to NBF_Service@browngreer.com.

II. CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER TWO: LIABILITY DISCOVERY FROM

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS

Each individual plaintiff whose case is coordinated in JCCP 4995 and who has not

provided CMO 2 responses to Plaintiffs’ Liaison before entry of this Order shall complete and

upload to the BrownGreer Portal the CMO 2 Questionnaire within 30 days of either the entry of

this Order, or within 30 days of the entry of the order granting coordination of their case,

whichever is later in time. BrownGreer shall present to the Defendants and to Individual Plaintiffs’

leadership the responsive information in a CMO 2 report every sixty (60) days. The next CMO 2

report shall be due on January 14, 2019.

III. DAMAGES INFORMATION FROM SUBROGATION PLAINTIFFS

A. Retained Individual Plaintiffs—Insurance Information Sharing

Each Counsel or Law Firm with a case coordinated in JCCP 4955 shall submit within 10

days of the entry of CMO 5 a List of Individual Plaintiffs, whether filed or unfiled, who have

retained Counsel or Law Firm in conjunction with claims arising out of a fire that is subject to

JCCP 4955. This List shall include:

• The first name and last name of all adult members of each household (household

defined as a group of Individual Plaintiffs suffering a loss associated with the same

address);2

• The address of the loss location (street addresses only; P.O. Boxes and Parcel

 

2 To include business entity Direct Plaintiffs, where applicable.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 30

of 55
1

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

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5: COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION OF CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER COMPLIANCE INFORMATION AND SUBROGATION FILES

Numbers are not acceptable);

3 and

• The name of all known insurance carriers providing property insurance coverage to

the household members.

Subrogation Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of the Complete List of Individual Plaintiffs to

BrownGreer for import and matching to the existing BrownGreer Individual Plaintiff Database.

B. Individual Plaintiffs Retained After Entry of CMO 5 – Insurance Information

Sharing

For cases retained after entry of CMO 5, each Counsel or Law Firm with a case

coordinated in JCCP 4955 shall submit an updated complete List of Individual Plaintiffs, whether

filed or unfiled, who have retained Counsel or Law Firm in conjunction with claims arising out of

a fire that is subject to JCCP 4955 every sixty (60) days to BrownGreer. The List shall include:

• The first name and last name of all adult members of each household (household

defined as a group of Individual Plaintiffs suffering a loss associated with the same

address);

• The address of the loss location (street addresses only; P.O. Boxes and Parcel

Numbers are not acceptable); and

• The name of all known insurance carriers providing property insurance coverage to

the household members.

C. Subrogation Claim File Production Master Control Spreadsheet

Subrogation Plaintiffs shall independently conduct a “matching” project between the List

of Individual Plaintiffs and the Subrogation List of Claims to identify all property insurance

claims related to each of the Individual Plaintiff households. Wherever a match is identified,

Subrogation Plaintiffs will endeavor to link the List of Individual Plaintiffs with the Subrogation

claim information for each household, and with the unique Individual Plaintiff Control Number

and/or the Household Number assigned by BrownGreer.

Subrogation Plaintiffs shall create an initial matching spreadsheet called “Claim File

Production Master Control” (“CFMC”). The CFMC shall combine and link information from the

 

3 Where a property has no street address, Counsel or Law Firm shall provide the best available

identifying information for that property.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 31

of 55
1

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

5

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5: COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION OF CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER COMPLIANCE INFORMATION AND SUBROGATION FILES

List of Individual Plaintiffs, the Subrogation List of Claims and the BrownGreer Individual

Plaintiff Database as follows:

• Client information submitted by the Individual Plaintiff firms (client/household

member names, loss address, carriers);

• The corresponding BrownGreer Individual Plaintiff Control Number and/or

Household Number; and

• Insurance claim information matched to the Individual Plaintiff/Household,

including Name of Insured, Carrier Name, Claim Number, Date of Loss (as

reported to carrier), Loss Location Address, amount paid, open reserves (if any),

and the status of adjustment of the claim by the carrier.

Upon completion, the initial CFMC will be provided to BrownGreer for import into a

central data management system. The BrownGreer Portal will then become the central repository

for management of all Individual Plaintiff data, including any insurance claim data provided by

the Subrogation Plaintiffs. BrownGreer will provide the Subrogation Plaintiffs with access to the

BrownGreer Portal to facilitate ongoing matching between Individual Plaintiff and Subrogation

data.

• Subrogation Plaintiffs will update the paid and open reserves as well as claims

status for all claims matched to Individual Plaintiffs in the BrownGreer Portal

regularly, and no less frequently than every four (4) months.

• Upon completion of the initial matching process outlined above, Subrogation

Plaintiffs will update the carrier data reported to the BrownGreer Portal to provide

a breakdown of payments by coverage, to include payments under Building,

Contents/Business Personal Property, Alternative Living Expenses/Business

Interruption and Auto/Specialty. Once a coverage breakdown has been added to the

BrownGreer Portal, all updates going forward will include a breakdown by

coverage.

D. Individual Plaintiff Insurance Claim File Production

The Subrogation Plaintiffs will produce claim files to BrownGreer as follows:

• For any claim that has been matched to an Individual Plaintiff Household, the

Subrogating Plaintiff will produce the closed claim file to BrownGreer once the

claim has been closed for adjustment; and

• BrownGreer will upload the claim file to the BrownGreer Portal and alert counsel,

or the individual plaintiff (if pro se), by way of email notification, that counsel or

pro se plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days to review the insurance claim file and

object to its production and/or redact information from the production. As soon as

representing counsel or the pro se plaintiff marks the claim file as “review

complete”, the claim file will be made available to the Defendants through the

BrownGreer Portal. Plaintiff shall upload into the BrownGreer Portal the approved

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 32

of 55
1

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

6

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5: COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION OF CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER COMPLIANCE INFORMATION AND SUBROGATION FILES

version of the claim file for production to the Defendants. However, if no review is

performed or objection made within twenty-one (21) days of email notification,

then the insurance claim file will automatically be made available to the Defendants

through the BrownGreer Portal as provided by Subrogating Plaintiff.

E. Access to the BrownGreer Portal

Each Individual Plaintiff, Subrogation Plaintiff, and Defendant shall establish a secure

connection with the BrownGreer Portal by obtaining authorized user names and secure login

passwords to permit use of BrownGreer Portal by counsel.

Each Plaintiff shall continue to use the BrownGreer Portal to request, obtain, complete, or

upload any required data, and serve the appropriate CMO 1 and 2 compliance information online

(including uploading PDFs or other electronic images, photographs and videos of any records

required). Liaison Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs shall continue to work with BrownGreer to

ensure CMO compliance and will continue to view, search and download non-confidential

materials submitted to the BrownGreer Portal. Finally, the Court may establish a secure

connection with the BrownGreer Portal by obtaining an authorized user name and secure login

password to permit use of the BrownGreer Portal by the Court.

Except as set forth herein, Counsel for plaintiffs and each pro se plaintiff shall be

permitted to view, search and download on the BrownGreer Portal those materials submitted by

that Plaintiff and by Defendants relating to that Plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsels shall

maintain administrative access co-equal with BrownGreer to manage data and to facilitate

communications consistent with the purposes of this order.

F. CMO 1: NOA – Plaintiff-Specific Information.

Each individual plaintiff shall be required to confirm the actual damage categories that

apply to that plaintiff’s specific case. This confirmation is herein referred to as the “CMO

Compliance Information” and shall be submitted by each Individual Plaintiff to the BrownGreer

Portal. The parties have agreed to use the BrownGreer Portal to hold such information.

Each individual plaintiff whose case has been coordinated in JCCP 4955 before the entry

of CMO 5 shall submit the CMO Compliance Information to the BrownGreer Portal within 30

days of the entry of CMO 5. Each individual plaintiff whose case is coordinated in JCCP 4955

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 33

of 55
1

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

7

[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5: COLLECTION AND PRODUCTION OF CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER COMPLIANCE INFORMATION AND SUBROGATION FILES

after entry of CMO 5 shall have 30 days from the entry of the order granting coordination of that

plaintiff’s case in which to submit the CMO Compliance Information to the BrownGreer Portal.

Service of completed CMO Compliance Information shall be deemed to occur when the

submitting party has performed each of the steps required by the BrownGreer Portal to execute the

online submission of the materials, and the submitting party has received confirmation on screen

that the materials have been successfully submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow

Judge of the Superior Court

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 34

of 55
EXHIBIT B

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 35

of 55
1

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

 1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

MICHAEL A. KELLY (SB #71460) 

mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com 

KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI (SB #190111) 

kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com 

WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & 

SCHOENBERGER

650 California Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 981-7210 

FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077) 

fpitre@cpmlegal.com 

ALISON E. CORDOVA (SBN 284942) 

acordova@cpmlegal.com 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY 

San Francisco Airport Office Center 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010 

Telephone: (650) 697-6000 

STEVEN SKIKOS (SB #148110)

sskikos@skikos.com 

SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, ET AL.

1 Sansome Street, Ste 2830 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 546-7300 

ON BEHALF OF DIRECT PLAINTIFFS

EVAN R. CHESLER (pro hac vice) 

echesler@cravath.com 

TIMOTHY G. CAMERON (pro hac vice) 

tcameron@cravath.com 

KEVIN J. ORSINI (pro hac vice) 

korsini@cravath.com 

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (212) 474-1000 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS 

CRAIG S. SIMON (SB #78158) 

csimon@bergerkahn.com 

BERGER KAHN, A Law Corporation 

1 Park Plaza, Suite 340 

Irvine, CA 92614 

Telephone: (949) 474-1880 

ON BEHALF OF SUBROGATION PLAINTIFFS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Coordination Proceeding 

Special Title (Rule 3.550) 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES 

 JCCP No. 4955 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: 

PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL 

Assigned for All Purposes to: 

Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow, Dept. 304

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

The parties, by and through Individual and Subrogation Plaintiffs’ Lead and Liaison 

Counsel and Counsel for Defendant PG&E, hereby reach the following stipulation as to the 

handling of preference trials in the North Bay Fire Litigation.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 36

of 55
1

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

STIPULATION 

PG&E and Individual and Subrogation Plaintiffs’ Lead and Liaison Counsel agree that to 

the extent any attorney representing a Plaintiff in this case believes it is appropriate to file a 

motion for preference trial settings under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 36, he or she 

must utilize the Order regarding Preference Protocol set forth in Exhibit A, annexed to this 

Stipulation. 

So stipulated: 

Dated: December 24, 2018 WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER

By: /s/ Michael A. Kelly

 MICHAEL A. KELLY 

Attorneys for Individual Plaintiffs 

Dated: December 24, 2018 BERGER KAHN

By: /s/ Craig Simon 

 CRAIG SIMON 

Attorneys for Subrogation Plaintiffs

Dated: December 24, 2018 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

By: /s/ Kevin J. Orsini 

 KEVIN J. ORSINI 

Attorneys for Defendants Pacific Gas & Electric 

Company and PG&E Corporation

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 37

of 55
1

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

EXHIBIT A 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 38

of 55
1

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Coordination Proceeding 

Special Title (Rule 3.550) 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES 

 JCCP No. 4955 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: 

PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL 

Assigned for All Purposes to: 

Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow, Dept. 304

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

This Case Management Order shall govern all cases filed in or transferred to California 

North Bay Fire Cases, JCCP 4955, including all cases currently in this proceeding and any cases 

subsequently added to this proceeding. The Court anticipates, given the large number of filings in 

this JCCP and the factual nature and complexity of the claims at issue, that multiple plaintiffs may 

be interested in pursuing a preferential trial setting. The purpose of this Case Management Order is 

to establish a preference case protocol to facilitate the exchange of information related to cases 

potentially eligible for preferential trial setting. 

The Court hereby Orders as follows: 

1. A Preference Committee for Individual Plaintiffs is hereby established to review 

potential preference cases and advise the submitting Plaintiff’s counsel as to the viability and 

sequence of any potential filings. The Preference Committee shall consist of the following 

members of the Individual Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and shall report to (Co-Lead and CoCase: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 39

of 55
1

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

 5

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

Liaison Counsel): Thomas Brandi, Amy Eskin, Max Schuver, Mary Alexander, Allison Cordova, 

Angela Ja Chun, Matt Skikos, Joanna Fox, Steven Berki, and Ahmed Diab. 

2. The Preference Committee shall meet regularly and report to Co-Lead and CoLiaison counsel for Individual Plaintiffs and shall be available for consultation as a group with any 

individual plaintiff’s counsel. For this purposes of compliance with this Order, the Preference 

Committee obligations are to all plaintiffs in the litigation and the litigation as a whole. 

3. The Preference Committee shall be responsible for meeting and conferring with the 

defendants regarding potential preference cases including briefing scheduling, setting of hearings, 

and coordination of discovery. These meet and confer efforts with Defendants will also include 

the Attorney for the Plaintiff moving for Preference. 

4. The Preference Committee shall submit to all counsel a preference questionnaire 

which shall be completed by the submitting Plaintiff’s counsel who seeks to present a case to this 

Court for preferential trial setting. Given the large number of cases potentially eligible for 

preferential setting, counsel for any individual plaintiff seeking preference shall complete the 

preference questionnaire and provide it to the Preference Committee. 

5. Any plaintiff’s counsel who, at any time, represents a Plaintiff that has a good faith 

basis for asserting entitlement to a preferential trial setting under Code of Civil Procedure § 36 

must provide written Notice to the Preference Committee of their potential claim of preferential 

trial setting eligibility at least 21 days before a motion for preference can be filed. At the time this 

Notice is served, the submitting Plaintiff’s counsel shall also produce to the Preference Committee 

the following: (a) Grounds for Preference – A written statement setting forth in detail the grounds 

for preferential trial setting and the facts supporting preference including the name of the plaitniff; 

(b) Records – Any medical and/or other records which the Plaintiff moving for Preference 

intends to submit to the Court to support the request for preferential trial setting, which will be 

uploaded on a secure document portal managed by Brown Greer to maintain security; (c) 

Declarations – Any and all declarations in support of the request for preferential trial setting (d) a 

completed CMO Compliance statement as required by CMO 5 uploaded to the BrownGreer portal 

and (e) a completed preference questionnaire as set forth in paragraph 4 above. If the Plaintiff 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 40

of 55
1

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

 6

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

moving for Preference has exigent circumstances that warrant an expedited process, these 

circumstances are to be presented to the Preference Committee at the earliest opportunity. If good 

cause exists, the attorney for the Plaintiff moving for Preference, Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and 

Defendants’ Counsel will meet and confer as soon as practical. 

6. To the extent that a proposed plaintiff preference request has a corresponding 

Subrogation claim, Subrogation Leadership will be included and consulted as well. 

7. Upon receipt of Notice(s) of potential claim(s) for preferential trial setting, the 

Preference Committee shall review and confirm that each request is complete and compliant with 

the preference protocol pursuant to C.C.P. § 36 and ready for meet and confer with Defendants. 

The Preference Committee shall communicate the findings of their review to the submitting 

Plaintiff’s Counsel within 7 days of receipt of Notice. 

8. Once a review of a request for preferential trial setting is deemed complete, 

pursuant to paragraph III above, the Preference Committee, or the submitting Plaintiff’s Counsel if 

s/he disagrees with the Preference Committee’s findings, shall provide Defendants with Notice 

regarding the preferential trial setting request(s) and the supporting materials to be submitted with 

the anticipated Preference motion(s) including any medical records and /or declarations that will 

be submitted. Plaintiffs and Defendants shall meet and confer within 7 days regarding the briefing 

and potential deposition schedule for each request for preferential trial setting. Any unresolved 

disputes amongst the parties regarding preferential trial settings will be decided by the Court upon 

the filing and hearing of a Motion for Preferential Trial Setting pursuant to C.C.P. § 36. 

9. Counsel for the plaintiff bringing the preference motion shall be in compliance with 

the CMOs of this Court. 

10. After the procedure followed in this Preference Protocol is completed, any attorney 

representing a Plaintiff in this case may proceed with the filing of a motion for preference under 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 36 if that attorney believes it is appropriate to do so 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 41

of 55
1

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

 7

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 6 RE: PREFERENCE CASE PROTOCOL - 

JCCP No. 4955

Dated: 

 Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow 

Judge of the Superior Court 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 42

of 55
EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 43

of 55
INDIVID. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 1 JCCP NO. 4955

1

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

GERALD SINGLETON (SBN 208783)

TERRY SINGLETON (SBN 58316)

GARY LoCURTO (SBN270372)

SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC

115 West Plaza Street

Solana Beach, CA 92075

Phone: (760) 697-1330

Email: gerald@slffirm.com

terry@terrysingleton.com

gary@slffirm.com

JOHN F. McGUIRE, JR. (SBN 69176)

BRETT J. SCHREIBER (SBN 239707)

THORSNES BARTOLOTTA McGUIRE LLP

2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor

San Diego, California 92103

Phone: 236-9363 Fax: (619) 236-9653

Email: mcguire@tbmlawyers.com

Fusselman@tbmlawyers.com

Schreiber@tbmlawyers.com

Counsel for Individual Requesting Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Coordination Proceeding

Special Title (Rule 3.550)

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES

CJC-17-004955

JCCP Case No. 4955

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT FOR CERTAIN 

INDIVUDUAL PLAINTIFFS FILED 

DECEMBER 26, 2018

Date: December 28, 2018

Time: 3:00 p.m.

Dept: 304

Judge: Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

The Individual Plaintiffs represented by the attorneys listed above (“Requesting Plaintiffs”) 

hereby submit the following to be included in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement 

(“Joint CMS”) filed December 21, 2018. In sum, and for the reasons set forth below, Requesting 

Plaintiffs seek leave and/or request the following:

//

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 44

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 2 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

1. A trial date for the Sulphur Fire;

2. An order granting Requesting Plaintiffs the right to conduct independent

discovery on behalf of Preference Plaintiffs;

3. A separate litigation track as to all fires; and

4. The right to file a Motion to Compel access to the physical evidence and 

reports generated by Cal Fire in connection with all 2017 North Bay Fires.

I.

INTRODUCTION/COMPLIANCE WITH MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS

Undersigned counsel has met and conferred with counsel for PG&E, and with Leadership 

Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs (“Leadership”), prior to the instant filing. On or about December 

16, 2018, Undersigned Counsel communicated with both Counsel for PG&E and Leadership, 

informing them of their intention to request Sulphur be set for trial sometime in June 2019. PG&E 

and Leadership both expressed opposition to the idea. On December 17, 2018, Leadership issued a 

Cease and Desist letter direct towards Undersigned Counsel, claiming various violations of Court 

Orders. Undersigned counsel categorically denies any violation of any of the directives of this Court

and issued the attached response on December 18, 2018. Undersigned Counsel sent a follow up 

correspondence to Leadership and Counsel for PG&E on December 19, 2018, further outlining the 

issues addressed in the instant filing, in an effort to be completely transparent and continue the meet 

and confer process. This final effort proved futile and the parties unfortunately were unable to find 

any common ground. As such, Requesting Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement to meet and 

confer regarding the issue raised herein. 

II.

RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE COURT IN CMO NO. 3&4

AND REQUEST TO SET A TRIAL DATE FOR THE SULPHUR FIRE

In response to CMO 3, Requesting Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental filing requesting the 

Court set Sulphur for trial first. In CMO 4 the Court indicated Requesting Plaintiffs did not “provide 

all the data I requested in my earlier CMC order.” Accordingly, Requesting Plaintiffs provide this 

information herein and respectfully renew their request to set a trial date for the Sulphur Fire;

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 45

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 3 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

however, this request differs from the prior request in that it is being made only on behalf of 

Plaintiffs represented by undersigned counsel. 

Set Forth below is Requesting Plaintiffs’ attempt to provide the court with the information 

requested in CMO 3, along with the general premise of why Sulphur should be set for trial.

Trial setting. The parties should propose a trial with this detail, for each trial proposed:

• Which fire (Tubbs, Atlas, etc.). Explain the choice, if the parties disagree.

Requesting Plaintiffs believe the Sulphur Fire should be tried as soon as it is ready. In terms 

of liability, Sulphur is the most straightforward of all the North Bay fires. The Sulphur Fire does not

involve vegetation management issues and the widely held belief amongst all Plaintiffs is the fire 

was caused by a snapped pole. Accordingly, it will be a very streamlined trial and will not require as 

much written discovery, depositions, or experts as the other more complex fires. 

If Requesting Plaintiffs can obtain the Cal Fire reports and inspect the evidence collected by 

Cal Fire (discussed infra), Undersigned Counsel is confident this case will be ready for trial by June

10, 2019. Requesting Plaintiffs are not asking the Court to change the trial date for the Atlas Fire 

(which currently is set for trial on September 23, 2019) and are eager for the Atlas trial to go 

forward. Rather, Requesting Plaintiffs are asking that the Sulphur trial (which should last 14-18 

court days) be completed in June. Since there is no shortage of capable lawyers on both sides who 

can handle the work up for both trials, a trial in June on the Sulphur case will not prevent the Atlas 

case from going forward as scheduled on September 23. 

Finally, as addressed in prior filings, there is a significant human element involved here. The 

hundreds of people who lost their homes in the Sulphur Fire (Cal Fire determined that 162 structures 

were destroyed) are hurting. A significant number of those who lost their homes in the Sulphur Fire 

were renters. Most were uninsured, and many are suffering extreme hardship (including 

homelessness) while they wait for their cases to be resolved. Many other plaintiffs are significantly 

underinsured, and cannot afford to rebuild their home until they settle or try their cases against 

PG&E. Under most insurance policies, a Plaintiffs’ ALE benefits – the portion of an insurance 

policy that pays for a rental while the insured’s home is being rebuilt – will run out after two years. 

In short, Responding Plaintiffs believe the foregoing trial schedule is necessary to avoid prejudicing 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 46

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 4 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

the multitude of individuals who are uninsured and underinsured.

• Number of plaintiffs.

Approximately 5-10 cases per trial, totaling 8-15 individual plaintiffs.

• Key characteristics of each plaintiff (e.g. the case includes wrongful death, or type of 

damage (e.g., agricultural); or presents a key issue [in which case this issue should 

be cited]; or plaintiff is selected randomly.

Responding Plaintiff’s anticipate submitting Plaintiffs for trial which represent the full 

picture of injuries, losses, and/or damages, which are as follows: 

1. Complete primary home loss

2. Partial home loss

3. Commercial loss

4. Raw land loss (no dwelling/structure) rental loss 

5. Smoke and soot damage 

6. Evacuation only injuries (including emotional distress for those who fled their 

homes in fear for their lives.) 

When and how each plaintiff will be identified, and if a series of backup plaintiffs 

whose cases present similar characteristics will be identified.

The parties will work collaboratively to identify the appropriate representative Plaintiffs and 

complete the process no more than 120 days prior to trial. 

Each Plaintiff will represent the holder of a type of claim that arises from one of the above

categories. Plaintiffs’ counsel will provide defendant with a list of three or four suitable individuals 

which fit into one of the above categories who are fit to serve as a representative trial plaintiff, with 

supporting documentation to validate their selection. Plaintiffs and defendant can then 

collaboratively select two or three individuals in each category to make certain as the trial date 

approaches, should any individual claim be settled another suitable plaintiff holding the same type of 

right or claim can replace that individual. In the event the parties cannot reach an agreement on the 

proposed representatives, the parties would bring the matter before the Court for final decision. 

//

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 47

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 5 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

• Estimated number of witnesses, with very brief descriptions of their testimony (e.g. 

expert on topic X, plaintiff on damages, PG&E witness on topic Z, etc.).

Below is an estimate of the types of witnesses, what they will testify to, and an estimate of 

the length of testimony.

PG&E WITNESSES 

SUBJECT: Training & Qualifications of PG&E and/or Third Party Equipment

WITNESS TIME ESTIMATE

• PG&E PMK Regarding Pole Inspection and Risk of Pole Failure 1.5 Hours 

• Supervising Equipment Inspection Manager: To Establish Insufficient 

Inspection and Maintenance Protocol 

(1-2 Witnesses) 

3.0-3.5 Hours 

• PG&E Quality Control Project Manager(s) to Establish Knowledge of 

Deficiencies in Equipment Inspection Systems. 

3.0 -3.5 Hours 

Total Hours 7.5-8.5

PG&E WITNESSES 

Subject: Failure of PG&E Managing Agents to Manage Wildfire Risk 

WITNESS TIME ESTIMATE

• PG&E Director Risk Management For Re: Equipment Maintenance 3.0-3.5 Hours 

• PG&E Director Risk Management to Establish Process for Identification 

& Removal/Repair of aging or defective Poles/Equipment. 

3.0-3.5 Hours

• PG&E Operations Manager to Establish Historical Process for 

determining when Poles/Equipment should be replaced. 

3.0-3.5 Hours

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 48

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 6 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

• Estimated number of days for trial, accounting for cross examination of witnesses 

by all counsel who would have reasons to do so.

o 14-18 court days

• PG&E Program Manager(s) to Establish Continued Failures for 

Managing Wildfire Risk. (1-2 Witnesses) 

3.0-3.5 Hours

• PG&E Program Managers For Public Safety & Reliability (“PS&R”). 2.0-2.5 Hours 

• PG&E Manager for Governance & Support re: Budgets for 

Pole/Equipment Inspection. 

Total Hours 14-16.5

PG&E WITNESSES 

WITNESS TIME ESTIMATE

• PG&E PMK re: Role & Responsibility of Emergency Operations Center 

Activated On or Before October 5, 2017 to Monitor Events Leading Up 

To Fire. 

3.0-3.5 Hours 

• PG&E PMK re: Policy, Practice & Procedure for Monitoring Weather 

Conditions in Advance of This Incident. 

2.5-3.0 Hours 

• PG&E PMK re: Policy, Practice Or Procedures For DeEnergizing Lines, 

Historical Background Regarding Any Evaluation of This Risk 

Prevention Measures Prior to This Incident. 

3.0-3.5 Hours 

Total Hours: 8.5-10

EXPERTS 

WITNESS TIME ESTIMATE

• Plaintiffs’ Expert re: Birds and Woodpecker Damage. 3.0 Hours 

• Plaintiffs’ Expert re: Electrical Accident Investigation, Contact & 

Causation. 

3.0 Hours 

• Plaintiffs’ Expert re: Fire Cause and Origin. 3.0 Hours 

• Plaintiffs’ Expert re: Quality Assurance Sampling and Audit 

Process. 

3.0 Hours 

• Plaintiffs’ Expert re: Risk Management Standards for Wildfire 

Prevention and Mitigation Measures. 

3.0 Hours 

Total Hours 15

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 49

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 7 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

• Proposed trial date.

o June of 2019

• Proposed county for trial.

Requesting Plaintiffs suggest Sulphur be tried in the City and County of San Francisco.

• While some parties have asked for trial in this Dept. 304, if the Department’s trial 

calendar does not allow a trial in or around the date proposed, state alternative (e.g., 

trial in different county; trial judge assigned by the Presiding Judge of this Court on 

the date of trial {master calendar approach}, etc.).

If this Department is unavailable on the date requested, Requesting Plaintiffs request the case 

be assigned to the Presiding Judge of this Court for assignment on the Master Calendar.

III.

REQUEST TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY DIRECTLY

AFTER PREFERENCE MOTION IS GRANTED

Requesting Plaintiffs filed their preference motion on December 4, 2018, and to date there 

has been no opposition filed. As such, undersigned counsel anticipate this Court granting the 

motion, which will in turn trigger the 120-day statutory timeframe to prepare for trial. 

The current structure of filtering all discovery through Leadership is unworkable given this

time frame and will only serve to delay counsel’s ability to swiftly conduct all necessary discovery

prior to trial. Under the current structure, if any counsel who is not part of leadership wishes to 

conduct any discovery, it must submit its proposals to leadership for approval. If leadership denies or 

ignores the request, counsel has a right to seek leave of court. This process is far too time 

consuming given the shortened period to complete discovery in a preference case. As such, 

undersigned counsel respectfully requests the right to independently conduct discovery. 

Undersigned counsel will of course review all discovery which has been propounded to make sure

they do not duplicate any of Leadership’s prior efforts. Undersigned Counsel was the head of the 

Lobo discovery committee, and does not anticipate this will pose any problem.

//

//

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 50

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 8 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

IV.

REQUEST FOR SEPARATE TRACK

As this Court is aware, since the inception of this coordinated proceeding, there have been 

significant differences and disputes which have emerged between Undersigned Counsel and 

Leadership. When the current structure was agreed to, such irreconcilable differences were not 

anticipated. Circumstances have drastically changed and as such, Undersigned Counsel is left with no 

choice but to petition the Court for a separate litigation track. 

There are clearly fundamental differences between the two factions’ approaches to resolving 

their respective clients’ claims. Despite the parties’ efforts, it seems a common ground cannot be 

reached. As addressed in prior filings and hearings, it is Undersigned Counsel’s position that these 

cases should be tried as they are ready. Many of Undersigned Counsel’s clients are in dire straits 

financially and need these cases to move along at a quicker pace. 

In addition to the philosophical and strategic differences between the two groups, Undersigned 

Counsel has been unable to meaningfully participate in the litigation process. Since the coordination 

of these proceedings, Leadership has consistently failed to include Undersigned Counsel in discussions 

and decisions which substantially impact all Plaintiffs. Additionally, Leadership continues to level

unsupported claims of misconduct, going as far as to completely refuse to communicate with anyone 

from Undersigned Counsel’s office. This situation has been made more untenable given the 

Leadership’s instance that counsel for Requesting Plaintiffs cease all contact with defense counsel, 

even as to matters that affect only Requesting Plaintiffs. 

Simply stated, Undersigned Counsel is unable to meaningfully participate in the coordinated 

proceedings and represent their clients as they see fit. As such Requesting Plaintiffs respectfully 

request the Court grant Requesting Plaintiffs a separate litigation track. If he court is unwilling to grant 

this request at this time, Requesting Plaintiffs respectfully request the opportunity to fully brief this 

issue in a noticed motion. 

//

//

//

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 51

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 9 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

V.

REQUEST TO FILE A MOTION TO COMPEL CAL FIRE

REPORTS AND TO INSPECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

All parties will certainly agree the Cal Fire Reports along with the ability to inspect physical 

evidence are the most import tools either party has to further the discovery process. Without access to 

this information, all parties are severely limited in what they can do to push these cases towards 

resolution. As detailed in the attached motion, to date, the parties have been unable to obtain all the 

unredacted reports for each fire and have not been granted access to inspect any physical evidence. 

The attached motion sets forth in great detail the timeline of events in Plaintiffs’ efforts to 

obtain the reports; however, the following is a brief synopsis of the timeline of events leading up to 

this request:

On June 8 and 12, 2018, Lead Counsel for the Individual and Subrogation Plaintiffs served 

subpoenas on Cal Fire for physical evidence it gathered and the completed, unredacted reports it 

generated in connection with its investigations of the Atlas, Honey, Lobo, McCourtney, 

Nuns/Abode/Norrbom/Pythian/Partrick, Pocket, Blue, and Sulphur fires. These subpoenas demanded 

production on dates between June 29 and July 9, 2018. Cal Fire produced unredacted copies of its 

reports (including attachments) for the first group of fires. 

With regard to the second group of fires, Cal Fire asked Plaintiffs to withdraw their 

subpoenas until the various district attorneys decided whether to press charges. As a compromise, 

Plaintiffs proposed these reports be produced subject to the Protective Order entered in this case. 

On July 5, 2018 Cal Fire informed Plaintiffs that, “all of the respective DA’s Offices have 

requested that the Group 2 fire investigation reports not be shared with anyone else,” and that, “Cal 

Fire intends on making every effort to honor this request of the DA’s Offices.” 

On July 9, 2018, Plaintiffs requested legal authority from Cal Fire to supports its position. 

On July 20, 2018, Cal Fire advised Plaintiffs that Cal Fire was still in the process of 

ascertaining the basis for the district attorneys’ request that Cal Fire withhold the subpoenaed 

materials from Plaintiffs. 

//

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 52

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 10 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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

Further meet and confer efforts were unsuccessful, and on August 9, 2018, Lead Counsel for 

the Individual and Subrogation Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Production of Cal Fire 

Reports.

On August 23, 2018, Cal Fire filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.

On August 30, 2017, Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs withdrew the Motion to Compel, stating 

certain individuals were in the process of finalizing a cooperative means of accessing the unredacted 

reports and access to physical evidence on or shortly after October 8, 2018.

October 8th came and went without Plaintiffs being granted access to the subpoenaed 

materials. 

CMO 1 does not set forth any rules or procedures expressly applicable to Requesting Plaintiffs’ 

instant request. CMO 1 does, however, provide:

Should any Plaintiff or law firm after consultation with the Individual Plaintiffs’ Lead 

Counsel and the Subrogation Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel believe that they need to 

propound liability discovery that has not been or will not be propounded by the 

Individual Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel or the Subrogation Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel, such 

Plaintiff or law firm may seek an order from the Court allowing such discovery to be 

propounded. Otherwise, no Plaintiff may serve separate liability discovery. (CMO 1 

at 15-16.)

Accordingly, Requesting Plaintiffs hereby seek leave of Court to file the attached motion to 

compel access to the physical evidence and reports generated by Cal Fire in connection with all fires.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Responding Plaintiffs request an order:

(1) Setting a trial in the Sulphur Fire case in June 2019 (preferably June 10, 2019);

(2) Allowing Undersigned Counsel to conduct discovery directly in the Lobo Fire 

on behalf of Preference Plaintiffs;

(3) Granting Requesting Plaintiffs a separate litigation track, or in the alternative, 

the opportunity to fully brief the matter; and

//

//

//

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 53

of 55
IND. PLS.’ RESP. TO JOINT CMC STMT. 11 JCCP NO. 4965

1

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) Allowing Requesting Plaintiffs to file the attached Motion to Compel access to 

the physical evidence and reports generated by Cal Fire in connection with all 

fires. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 21, 2018 SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC

 By: __________________________

Gerald Singleton, Esq.

Terry Singleton, Esq.

Gary LoCurto, Esq.

Dated: December 21, 2018 THORSNES BARTOLOTTA McGUIRE LLP

 

By: __________________________

John F. McGuire, Jr.

Attorneys for Requesting Plaintiffs

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 54

of 55
 PROOF OF SERVICE 

1

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

PROOF OF SERVICE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

 ) ss.: 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) 

California North Bay Fire Cases 

San Francisco Superior Court, JCCP No. 4955 

I certify that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. I am an 

employee of Skikos, Crawford, Skikos & Joseph LLP, and my business address is One Sansome 

Street, Suite 2830, San Francisco, CA 94104. 

On December 24, 2018, I caused to be served the following document(s) described as: 

JOINT SUBMISSION RE PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS 5 AND 6 

RE INDIVIDUAL CASES INCLUDING: CMO COMPLIANCE, CASE SPECIFIC 

DISCOVERY, PRODUCTION OF CLAIM FILES, TRIAL SELECTION AND 

PREFERENCE MOTIONS

on interested parties in this action by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) via file 

transfer protocol (FTP) to CaseHomePage through the upload feature at www.casehomepage.com. 

[The document will be deemed served on the date it was uploaded to the website as indicated by 

CaseHomePage system] 

 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 

is true and correct. Executed on December 24, 2018 at San Francisco, California. 

 

 MARCO MONTOYA 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3105-3 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 15:37:40 Page 55

of 55