1

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- 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

 Reorganized Debtors. 

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and 

 Electric Company 

☒ Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in 

the Lead Case, No. 19-30088 (DM).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088-DM 

Chapter 11 

Jointly Administered 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

On September 1, 2022, Mr. William B. Abrams filed a Motion 

for Reconsideration and Related Relief from the Order Granting 

Motion of the Fire Victim Trustee to File Redacted Versions of 

Certain Retention Agreements Until Litigation Related to Such 

Retention Agreements is Finally Resolved and Pursuant to Federal 

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Signed and Filed: September 27, 2022

Entered on Docket 

September 27, 2022

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13008 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 17:25:02 Page 1

of 6
1

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- 

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (the “Motion for Reconsideration”) 

(Dkt. 12916) and supporting declaration (Dkt. 12917). The 

Motion for Reconsideration contains five arguments: (1) the 

FVT’s redactions go beyond what is necessary to protect the 

interests of the Trust or to prevent aiding potential 

defendants; (2) the timing of the Second Amended BMC Retention 

Agreement may have been designed to evade disclosure of details 

following the court’s Order on Motion of William B. Abrams 

Authorizing Discovery Regarding Administration of the Fire 

Victim Trust (Dkt. 12682); (3) the lack of reasoning behind 

redacting the name of the FVT’s Authorized Agent; (4) the lack 

of any argument on the merits regarding the Motion of William B. 

Abrams Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 for 

Entry of an Order Authorizing Discovery and Hearings Regarding 

the Administration of the Fire Victim Trust (“Discovery Motion”) 

(Dkt. 12440); and (5) the RFP process detailed by the FVT was 

most likely insufficient and more discovery regarding the 

process is necessary. 

On September 6, 2022, the court entered an Order on Motion 

for Reconsideration (the “Order”) (Dkt. 12929) directing trustee 

of the FVT, Cathy Yanni, to file a response to the Motion for 

Reconsideration no later than September 16, 2022, after which 

the court would take the matter under submission. The Order 

specified that the trustee should address why she considers it 

necessary to redact the name and other identifying information 

about the FVT’s Authorized Agent in any of the retention 

agreements submitted in connection with this matter, as well as 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13008 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 17:25:02 Page 2

of 6
1

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- 

file any retention and compensation agreements associated with 

the Authorized Agent. 

On September 16, 2022 the trustee filed a document titled 

Fire Victim Trustee’s Disclosures Directed by September 6, 2022 

Order on Motion for Reconsideration (the “Response”) (Dkt. 

12972). The Response reveals the name of the Authorized Agent, 

Patrick Kelly, and attaches the engagement letter between the 

FVT and Mr. Kelly. The engagement letter redacts Mr. Kelly’s 

address as allowed by the court’s Order Granting Ex Parte Motion 

of the Fire Victim Trustee to Redact Personal Address from 

Engagement Letter to be Filed with the Court (Dkt. 12980). 

Unfortunately and inexplicably, the Response fails to 

address any other part of the Motion for Reconsideration as 

directed. This failure has left the court to evaluate the 

Motion for Reconsideration and address each of Mr. Abrams’ 

concerns without response from the FVT addressing specific and 

reasoned questions as to the FVT’s integrity and function. 

First, the court reiterates that it has reviewed all 

redacted information. The redacted portions of discovery 

promulgated by the FVT are specifically redacted to protect the 

interests of the FVT and would likely aid potential defendants 

if disclosed. Those redactions shall be made public at the 

imminent close of litigation undertaken on behalf of the FVT. 

The court remains satisfied that these temporary redactions are 

necessary for the benefit of the FVT, and the victim 

beneficiaries of the FVT. It will not second-guess the 

trustee’s judgment on this issue. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13008 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 17:25:02 Page 3

of 6
1

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- 

Second, upon further review of the redacted confidences 

submitted by the FVT, the court finds no intimation that any 

adjustment to agreements between representatives of the FVT and 

the FVT came about to avoid disclosing information as ordered by 

the court. Any suggestion by Mr. Abrams that adjustments to 

agreements came about for either of those reasons is conjecture 

and not supported by the confidential information reviewed by 

the court or anything else in the record. Again, the court will 

not engage in second-guessing the trustee’s judgment on this 

matter. 

 Third, the FVT’s Response discloses the name of the 

Authorized Agent and redacts only personal information unrelated 

to the Authorized Agent’s duties. Any argument regarding the 

nondisclosure of Mr. Kelly’s identity is now moot. 

Fourth, the court acknowledges that at the June 7, 2022 

hearing on the Discovery Motion, no arguments on the merits of 

the Discovery Motion were heard. This does not signify a lack 

of due process. Motions filed pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Bankruptcy 2004 are generally administrative in nature, and are 

merely the start, not the end, of a form of discovery in 

bankruptcy courts. No merits arguments were necessary under the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Bankruptcy Code, or 

in the opinion of the court. 

Finally, while Mr. Abrams may not feel the FVT’s 

description of the RFP process is satisfactory, there is no 

redacted material propounded by the FVT that would shed any more 

light on this process. Any dissatisfaction with the RFP process 

must be addressed in a manner outside of the Motion for 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13008 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 17:25:02 Page 4

of 6
1

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- 

Reconsideration, if it may, or even could, be addressed by this 

court at all, a doubtful proposition. 

The court is satisfied that there is no basis for 

reconsideration of its previous decision to allow certain 

redactions of information provided by the FVT. Accordingly, the 

Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

**END OF ORDER** 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13008 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 17:25:02 Page 5

of 6
1

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- 

COURT SERVICE LIST 

William B. Abrams 

1519 Branch Owl Place 

Santa Rosa, CA 95409 

William B. Abrams 

2041 Stagecoach Rd. 

Santa Rosa, CA 95404 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13008 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 17:25:02 Page 6

of 6