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 

#70978863_v3 1

DECLARATION OF LEAH E. CAPRITTA IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

Thomas D. Leland (Pro Hac) 

Leah E. Capritta (Pro Hac) 

1801 California Street, Suite 5000 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Telephone: (303) 974-6660 

Fax: (303) 974-6659 

Email: thomas.leland@hklaw.com 

leah.capritta@hklaw.com 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

Vince Farhat (SBN 183794) 

400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 896-2400 

Facsimile: (213) 896-2450 

Email: vince.farhat@hklaw.com 

Attorneys for 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 Debtor. 

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE NO. 19-30089 (DM)

Chapter 11 

DECLARATION OF LEAH E. 

CAPRITTA IN SUPPORT OF UNITED 

ENERGY TRADING, LLC’S MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC 

STAY

Date: November 13, 2019 

Time: 10:00 AM 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

Ctrm: 17 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 1

of 120
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 

#70978863_v3 2

DECLARATION OF LEAH E. CAPRITTA IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

DECLARATION OF LEAH E. CAPRITTA 

I, Leah E. Capritta, declare as follows: 

1. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the matters stated 

herein. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of Colorado and admitted pro hac 

vice to practice before this Court. I am a partner at the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP and 

am counsel for Defendant United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”). I make this declaration in 

support of UET’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay. I have personal knowledge of the 

facts set forth below, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently 

thereto. 

2. Judge Richard Seeborg presides over the case currently pending in the 

District of Northern California styled United Energy Trading, LLC v. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-02383 (RS) (the “District Court Case”). 

3. Filed on May 28, 2015, the District Court Case presents complicated fact 

patterns over several different divisions within Debtor PG&E, a series of complex business torts, 

and a rubric of procedural and discovery wrangling. 

4. The parties deposed over 20 individuals and exchanged hundreds of 

thousands pages of documents. 

5. In addition, the parties analyzed millions of transactions from tens of 

thousands of accounts from the CC&B system. 

6. The parties disclosed and deposed several forensic accountants, economists, 

and other experts. 

7. The District Court presided over many of these discovery issues. 

8. The interplay between the regulatory environment and the legal framework 

for many of the business torts alleged in the complaint create an additional complexity. The 

California Public Utilities Commission regulates both the CTAs and PG&E and issued decisions 

 at various times on which both parties rely for their legal positions. The District Court, 

accordingly, familiarized itself with these complicated issues. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 2

of 120
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 

#70978863_v3 3

DECLARATION OF LEAH E. CAPRITTA IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

9. On January 22, 2018, the District Court ruled on the parties’ competing 

motions for summary judgment, with the majority of UET’s claims surviving for trial. 

10. The District Court’s Order, in fact, contained several key rulings on how 

the parties were to address the regulatory environment at trial. 

11. On October 16, 2018, the District Court denied the parties’ dueling motions 

under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). 

12. That is, the District Court resolved all significant legal issues prior to trial. 

13. At the time of this bankruptcy filing, the following matters pended before 

the District Court: 

a. Parties’ Pre-Trial Conference set for February 27, 2019; 

b. Motions in Limine; and 

c. Trial set for March 11, 2019. 

14. On February 5, 2019, the District Court vacated the pretrial conference and 

the trial, effectively staying the case while PG&E worked its way through the reorganization 

process. 

15. Given the complex nature of the torts alleged, UET’s claims remain 

unliquidated. In 2017, when UET disclosed the reports of its experts, its damages totaled 

approximately $7 million; however, given the on-going nature of PG&E’s actions, that sum likely 

is now significantly higher. 

16. In addition, because PG&E’s actions are both fraudulent and intentional, 

the possibility of exemplary damages and an award of fees and costs exists. 

 17. Attached to this Declaration are true and correct copies of the following 

pleadings from the District Court Case: 

Exhibit 1: Second Amended Complaint; 

Exhibit 2: Order Regarding Motions for Partial Summary Judgment; 

Exhibit 3: Order Denying UET’s Motion to Exclude & PG&E’s Motion to Exclude; 

Exhibit 4: Further Joint Case Management Statement; and 

Exhibit 5: Case docket. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 3

of 120
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 

#70978863_v3 4

DECLARATION OF LEAH E. CAPRITTA IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

DATED: October 18, 2019 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

By: /s/ Leah E. Capritta 

 Leah E. Capritta 

 Attorneys for United Energy Trading, LLC

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 4

of 120
Exhibit 1 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 5

of 120
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

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Thomas D. Leland (Pro Hac) 

Leah E. Capritta (Pro Hac) 

633 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2300 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Telephone: (303) 974-6660 

Fax: (303) 974-6659 

E-mail: thomas.leland@hklaw.com

leah.capritta@hklaw.com

Charles L. Coleman III (65496) 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 743-6900 

Fax: (415) 743-6910 

E-mail: charles.coleman@hklaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, a California corporation,; 

ALBERT TORRES, an individual; BILL 

CHEN, an individual; TANISHA ROBINSON, 

an individual,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:15-CV-2383________

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR:

1. Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-

1968

2. Respondeat Superior/Agency

3. Violation of Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; 

4. Breach of fiduciary duty 

5. Intentional misrepresentation; 

6. Negligent misrepresentation; 

7. Intentional interference with contract; 

8. Intentional interference with prospective 

business advantage; 

 and 

9. Violation of California Unfair 

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

17200, et seq. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

)

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 6

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

In accordance with the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss 

(Dkt. No. 84),1

 Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC d/b/a Blue Spruce Energy Services (“UET” or 

“Plaintiff”) respectfully files this Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (“PG&E”), Albert Torres, Bill Chen, and Tanisha Robinson for: (1) Violation of 

RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968; (2) Respondeat Superior/Agency; (3) Violation of the Sherman Act § 

2, 15 U.S.C. § 2; (4) Breach of fiduciary duty; (5) Intentional misrepresentation; (6) Negligent 

misrepresentation; (7) Intentional interference with contract; (8) Intentional interference with 

prospective business advantage; and (9) Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. In support of these claims, UET respectfully makes the following 

allegations. 

NATURE OF CASE 

1. This case seeks to remedy PG&E’s fraudulent, deceptive, and monopolistic practices 

in California’s deregulated retail natural-gas market. 

2. PG&E is the traditional public utility in Northern California. PG&E currently holds 

between 70-90% of the natural gas commodity market. UET is a certified “Core Transport Agent,” 

or “CTA,” which is a competitive provider of natural gas to California. UET operates in PG&E’s 

service area. 

3. PG&E and UET compete to supply natural gas to the same residents and small 

businesses. Unless the customer affirmatively chooses a different CTA, the customer returns to 

PG&E by default at the severance of UET’s contract with the customer. 

4. UET has chosen consolidated billing and collections, available as a matter of right to 

CTAs under PG&E’s tariffs. Under this option, PG&E sends one bill to the customer reflecting both 

its charges and UET’s charges; PG&E is responsible for collecting payments and distributing that 

money to UET. PG&E acts as UET’s agent for these important business functions.

5. PG&E has willfully and knowingly manipulated its agency position and engaged in 

improper and unlawful billing, collection, and payment practices under which PG&E uses its position 

1

 The Order granted UET leave to amend with respect to the Sherman Act and conversion claims. UET does not amend 

its conversion claim, 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 7

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

as UET’s billing and collections agent to effectively misappropriate money from UET, defrauding 

UET and its customers, and unfairly competing with UET for core natural gas customers. 

6. For example, PG&E receives payments from UET customers and “holds” that 

money in a PG&E account instead of paying it to UET for its commodity charges.

7. Similarly, PG&E applies credits from its own services or programs, such as rebates or 

credits for the use of solar panels, to UET’s commodity gas charges. In this way, PG&E effectively 

misappropriates UET’s customer charges to offset the money that PG&E owes to customers. 

8. PG&E also inappropriately “reverses” customer charges. A “reversal” should occur 

only where PG&E terminates service to a customer, either because of non-payment or because the 

customer terminates PG&E service altogether. Put in perspective of the billing relationship, a reversal 

signals to UET that PG&E has not and cannot collect on UET’s unpaid balances. 

9. However, PG&E is reversing UET customer accounts for which PG&E has in fact 

received payment. Instead of applying those charges to the UET customer account balance, PG&E is 

crediting those amounts to its own electric or gas transportation accounts, and then inexplicably 

reversing the amounts owed to UET. 

10. These actions cause UET substantial harm, both with respect to the amounts withheld 

and with respect to its relationships with its customers. UET has lost countless customers who were 

annoyed or upset at UET’s collection efforts on fully-paid accounts, but which PG&E falsely 

informed UET were in arrears. 

11. Further, UET has disconnected or cancelled hundreds of customer accounts for nonpayment based on PG&E’s false representations made over the wires in interstate commerce to UET 

that the UET customers had not paid their bill for UET’s charges.

12. PG&E has also used its fiduciary position as UET’s billing and collections agent to 

engage in unlawful competition with UET by, among other things, inaccurately informing UET’s 

customers that they need not pay for UET’s services and by using its position as UET’s billings and 

collections agent to improperly induce UET’s customers to switch their service to PG&E. 

13. PG&E’s abuse of its fiduciary relationship with UET as well as its abuse of its market 

power as a regulated monopoly is knowingly calculated to drive away as many customers from UET 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 8

of 120
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 AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

as possible back to PG&E and is done with the specific intent to destroy competition in the retail 

natural gas commodity market in PG&E’s service area. 

14. PG&E’s actions hurt both consumers and competition in California, increasing 

commodity gas prices in California.

THE PARTIES 

15. United Energy Trading, LLC d/b/a Blue Spruce Energy Services is a privately-owned 

provider of retail electricity and natural gas to end-user residential and commercial customers 

throughout the United States and Canada. UET is headquartered at 225 Union Boulevard, Suite 200, 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228. 

16. Defendant PG&E is a California corporation with its principal place of business 

located at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105. PG&E is a subsidiary of PG&E 

Corporation and is one of the largest regulated investor-owned electric utilities in California. On its 

website (http://www.pge.com), PG&E represents that its service area extends from Eureka in the 

north to Bakersfield in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean to the Sierra Nevada. It operates 141,215 

circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,616 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines 

throughout this area. According to its website, PG&E maintains 4.3 million natural gas customer 

accounts.

17. PG&E is a regulated monopoly utility within its service area. It is regulated by the 

California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”). 

18. Defendant Albert Torres is the Vice President of Customer Operations at PG&E and 

manages, inter alia, PG&E’s billing, payment processing, and credit activities for its customers. 

Defendant Bill Chen works at PG&E as its ESP Services Manager and manages PG&E’s relationships 

with CTAs (as well as PG&E’s relationship with competitive electricity providers). Defendant 

Tanisha Robinson works at PG&E as its Supervisor for EDI Operations and ESP Billing; Ms. 

Robinson manages Optional Consolidated PG&E Billing and the process by which EDI files 

(described below) are transmitted to UET. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 9

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

JURISDICTION & VENUE 

19. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action 

arises out of PG&E’s violations of the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over UET’s claims based on California law under 27 U.S.C. § 1367. In addition, the Court 

has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the parties are citizens of different 

states and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 

20. This Court has personal jurisdiction over PG&E because PG&E resides in this State, 

does business in this State, has engaged in acts or omissions within this State causing injury, and has 

otherwise established contacts with this State making the exercise of personal jurisdiction proper. 

21. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) & (2) because PG&E 

resides in this District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the action 

occurred in this District.

22. In January 2014, UET filed an adjudicatory proceeding with the CPUC seeking an 

injunction against certain of PG&E’s customer confidentiality practices and a refund on UET’s 

accounts. On November 17, 2014, the Commission enjoined several of PG&E’s practices and soon 

after ordered discovery on the amount of UET’s refund. The facts and claims alleged, infra, in this 

Complaint soon came to light, for which the CPUC cannot provide complete relief. On July 14, 2015, 

the Commission held in abeyance the adjudicatory proceeding, and UET files this Second Amended 

Complaint as is its right under Cal. Public Util. Code § 2106. 

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 

23. Pursuant to Civil L-R 3.2(c), intradistrict assignment in San Francisco is proper 

because the unlawful conduct that gives rise to these claims occurred in the City and County of San 

Francisco. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

24. PG&E has been the regulated monopoly utility in Northern California since 1905. It 

traditionally provided both electricity and natural gas to all end users—both residential and 

commercial—in its service area. As a monopoly utility, PG&E is regulated by the California Public 

Utilities Commission (“CPUC”). Through the use of a pre-approved formula, the CPUC regulates the 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 10

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

rates that PG&E may charge for the energy it provides, including the price it may charge for the 

commodity of natural gas.

25. According to its website, PG&E has approximately 4.3 million natural gas customer 

accounts in its service area.

26. In 1991, the state legislature partially deregulated the natural-gas utility industry in 

California.

27. In connection with this deregulation, the CPUC established a pilot aggregation 

program which offered residential and small commercial gas customers, called “core” customers, the 

opportunity to aggregate their gas loads so that they could participate in competitive gas markets and 

thereby obtain a lower price for natural gas. Because of this program, California residents are free to 

purchase their commodity gas from either PG&E or from certain private providers, called “Core 

Transport Agents,” or CTAs. 

28. The stated purpose of the CTA program is to “lower[] CTA customer prices and 

enable[] [CTAs] to better compete with utilities and weaken monopolies.” See

http:www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Retail_Gas_Markets/.

29. Although California core gas customers may purchase their natural gas from a nonmonopoly CTA, the regulated monopoly utilities, including PG&E, continue to provide natural gas 

utility service to these customers. 

30. Accordingly, the CTAs compete with PG&E for natural-gas core customers. 

31. A proposed CTA must fulfill exacting standards to operate in California, completing 

an extensive application, submitting the fingerprints of its executives, establish its creditworthiness 

and, ultimately, post a security bond. Accordingly, the regulatory process itself creates barriers to 

entry in addition to typical business needs such as capitalization and market expertise. 

32. CTAs purchase natural gas on the open market and sell the gas directly to end users 

using PG&E’s distribution system. When an end user purchases gas from a CTA instead of PG&E, 

the utility charges a separate “transportation” charge to the customer. In addition, PG&E typically 

charges customers for electricity on the same bill. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 11

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

33. The natural gas supplied by the CTAs is fungible in chemical composition and 

function, completely interchangeable with that supplied by PG&E; both may be used by core 

customers to heat homes and businesses and other such uses. 

34. As another aspect of deregulation, CTAs may elect, as a matter of right, to have their 

billing consolidated with PG&E’s; i.e., both the CTA’s and PG&E’s charges appear on one statement 

and the customer pays both with one check (or other method) to PG&E. 

35. Specifically, under PG&E’s relevant tariffs, known as its “Gas Rules,” CTAs have the 

right to participate in a billing and payment program called “Optional Consolidated PG&E Billing.” 

If the CTA chooses this billing option, PG&E must calculate the CTA’s charges based on the 

customer’s gas usage and apply the proprietary and confidential rate provided by the CTA to PG&E 

once a month. Under Consolidated PG&E Billing, PG&E “assumes responsibility for the accuracy of 

the calculation of CTA’s charges,” but not for the accuracy of the CTA’s rate per therm of natural 

gas provided. Gas Rule No. 23.C.1.c(1)(b)(iv). 

36. PG&E operates Consolidated Billing as a unit separate from its primary business 

activities. Tanisha Robinson, for example, supervises two employees whose responsibility includes 

little else beyond sending the electronic files referenced in Paragraphs 55, 67, and 77 and otherwise 

maintaining the Consolidated Billing structure imposed by Gas Rule 23. William Chen similarly 

devotes all of his work time to managing either Consolidated Billing or to managing customer care 

issues (e.g., switching customers’ gas commodity service either to or from a CTA) associated with 

Consolidated Billing.

37. Under Consolidated Billing, PG&E also acts as the CTA’s collections agent. As such, 

PG&E is required to pay to the CTA the amounts paid to PG&E for the CTA’s gas commodity charges 

after it receives that money from the customer. Gas Rule 23.C.1.c(4)(a). PG&E is required to transfer 

the received payments to the CTA either 17 days after the bill was rendered to the customer or the 

next business day after the payment is received by the utility. Id.

38. When transferring payments, PG&E is required to specify the amount paid by each 

service account. Id. If there are any amounts resulting from returned payments (e.g., the customer’s 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 7 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 12

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

check “bounces”) or returned payment charges, PG&E may debit those amounts to the CTA on the 

billing statement for the following month. Id. The tariffs permit no other debits or set-offs. 

39. PG&E is responsible for collecting the unpaid balance of all charges from customers, 

sending notices informing customers of unpaid balances, and taking the appropriate actions to recover 

any unpaid amounts owed to the CTA. Gas Rule 23.C.1.c(5)(a). 

40. UET is a qualified CTA operating in PG&E’s service area. UET signed a Core Gas 

Aggregation Service Agreement with PG&E in September 2010 and began serving customers in 

Northern California shortly thereafter. 

41. UET supplies natural gas to its customers by transporting it across interstate pipelines 

for delivery to PG&E’s Citygate. On receipt of UET’s gas, PG&E charges UET both for storing it 

and for transporting it to the customer based on “take or pay” terms, the amount of which is 

determined by reference to UET’s overall volume calculated on both a monthly and yearly basis. 

42. UET spent significant time and money marketing for customers. These activities 

included engaging in direct-mail marketing, door-to-door marketing, internet and print campaigns, 

and other activities. 

43. As a result of these marketing efforts, UET grew its customer base in PG&E’s service 

area to approximately 60,000 core customers in 2014. 

44. UET participates in the Consolidated PG&E Billing Option, making PG&E its billing 

and collections agent for all of UET’s core customers in PG&E’s service area. UET pays PG&E 

approximately $40,000 per month for this service. 

45. Because PG&E has all of UET’s customer information and also is responsible for 

calculating the amount due, billing those amounts, collecting the money, and providing it to UET, the 

utility exercises a tremendous amount of control over UET’s customer base. 

PG&E’s Payment Withholding Scheme 

46. After PG&E receives the customer’s payment, it unilaterally divides the payments 

among the various accounts contained in the bill, including UET’s charges for natural gas, PG&E’s 

transportation charge, and PG&E’s electricity charges (if any). PG&E takes the position that this 

process is proprietary and will not share information about how it divides the payments received. In 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 8 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 13

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

its role as UET’s billing and collections agent, PG&E has engaged in improper and unlawful activities 

which have violated UET’s rights and caused UET damages and irreparable harm in a number of 

ways.

47. Specifically, for some of UET’s core customers, PG&E simply does not remit to UET 

funds it has received for UET’s gas commodity charges. As of the date of this filing, UET has not 

received full payment from PG&E on hundreds of UET customer accounts. According to UET’s 

records, as of at least September 2015, it is owed over $2.3 million from its customers with aging 

accounts past due by sixty days or more.

48. To track the billing process, PG&E regularly provides UET with an Electronic Data 

Interchange (“EDI”) file or a file transfer link containing information about each account for which 

there is activity. For easy reference, UET in this Second Amended Complaint refers to both types of 

information packets as “EDI files.” 

49. The EDI file contains information about the status of UET’s customer accounts. 

Specifically, in the EDI file, PG&E makes several representations to UET about its customers, 

including:

a. UET customers to whom PG&E has sent a bill containing UET’s commodity gas 

charges and the amount of UET’s charges that PG&E will collect;

b. UET customers who have paid UET’s previous charges and the amount PG&E has 

apportioned to UET; 

c. The balance of the UET customer’s account for UET’s commodity gas charges; 

d. The identity of UET customers who have not fully paid UET’s gas charges; and/or 

e. The number and identity of UET customers who have had charges “reversed” by 

PG&E.

50. PG&E’s EDI files frequently contain intentionally false representations to UET about 

the status of its customer accounts, including representations that certain customers have not paid 

UET’s charges, when those customers actually are current. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 9 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 14

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

51. PG&E sends the EDI file using interstate wires; that is, PG&E typically attaches the 

file or a link to a file-share site to an email that is sent over the internet from California to Lakewood, 

Colorado.

52. UET relies on the data and representations of PG&E contained in the EDI file. When 

it does not receive payments from PG&E for its customers, UET may contact the customer regarding 

the delinquency. 

53. Often, however, the customers state that they have fully paid their power bills to 

PG&E, including all of UET’s charges.

54. For these customers, PG&E’s EDI file, sent over the internet from California to 

Lakewood, Colorado, and which shows that the customer has not made the required payments for 

UET’s commodity gas charges, contains intentionally false and misleading information and also fails 

to disclose material information about UET’s customer accounts. 

55. For example, PG&E has used the internet to falsely report the status of the following 

accounts to UET: 

a. On or about June 2, 2014, PG&E received payment from Customer William S. 

(Account ID *558). PG&E recorded this payment as a “negative” bill to its own gas 

transportation account. On or about June 5, 2014, by file transfer using interstate wire, PG&E 

failed to notify UET of the full payment and instead carried the funds as a credit in PG&E’s 

gas transportation account. On or about July 7, 2014, PG&E received a payment from 

Customer William S., and PG&E again masked this payment as a “negative” bill to its own 

gas transportation account. On or about July 7, 2014, by EDI file transfer using interstate 

wires, PG&E failed to notify UET of the full payment and instead carried the funds as a credit 

in PG&E’s gas transportation account. PG&E continued to record payments as negative 

balances in its gas transportation account in September, October, and November 2014, and in 

each month, sending UET EDI files (e.g., on or about November 7, 2014) containing false 

information. PG&E’s various statements to UET were false because PG&E had in fact 

received payment from the customer but used accounting methods to hide the payments to 

make it appear as though the customer had not paid. On information and belief, PG&E has 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 10 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 15

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

continued to receive payments from the customer but has not remitted these to UET. As a 

result, all subsequent monthly and daily EDI payment files also contain false information. 

b. On or about June 5, 2014, PG&E received payment from Customer Irene M. (Account 

ID *845). On or about June 9, 2014, by EDI file transfer using interstate wires, PG&E failed 

to notify UET of the full payment and instead credited the full payment to PG&E’s gas 

transportation account. By EDI file transmitted on or about September 17, 2014, PG&E 

notified UET that it had billed the customer for UET’s services, when in fact that did not 

occur. On or about September 30, 2014, PG&E received payment from the customer. 

Nevertheless, on or about October 6, 2014, PG&E transmitted a payment file that did not 

inform UET of the customer’s payment and instead credited the full payment to PG&E’s gas 

transportation account. PG&E’s statements to UET were false because PG&E, in the first 

place, had failed to bill the Customer but told UET that it had; and, in the second place, 

received payment from Customer Irene M. but used accounting methods to hide the payments 

to make it appear that the customer had not paid. On information and belief, PG&E has 

continued to receive payments from the customer but has not remitted these to UET. As a 

result, any subsequent EDI payment files—approximately 4 monthly communications—also 

contain false information. 

c. On or about May 28, 2014, PG&E received payment from Customer Teresa D. 

(Account ID *395). On or about May 28, 2014, by EDI file transfer using interstate wires, 

PG&E transmitted a payment file that did not inform UET of the customer’s payment and 

instead credited the full payment to PG&E’s accounts. On or about September 29, 2014, 

PG&E received another payment from Customer Teresa D. On or about September 29, 2014, 

by EDI file transfer using interstate wires, transmitted a payment file by did not inform UET 

of the customer’s payment and instead credited the full payment to PG&E’s accounts. 

PG&E’s statements to UET were false because they had in fact received payments from 

Customer Teresa D., but used accounting methods to hide the payments to make it appear that 

the customer had not paid. On information and belief, PG&E has continued to receive 

payments from the customer but has not remitted these to UET. As a result, any subsequent, 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 11 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 16

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

monthly EDI payment files also contain false information. 

56. UET has cancelled hundreds of its customer accounts for non-payment based on what 

may be false information about the status of payments received from PG&E. 

57. Many of these cancelled accounts had fully paid for the natural gas provided by UET, 

but PG&E did not provide those funds to UET, creating the impression that the customers had not 

paid the appropriate charges when, in fact, the customers had remitted either the full or partial amount 

due for UET’s charges to PG&E. 

58. UET has otherwise continued to supply gas to PG&E for its active customers—

including those detailed in Paragraphs 55a-c, above—not knowing that PG&E’s accounting methods 

either failed to properly bill UET’s customers for the gas or failed to properly credit to UET payments 

received from such customers. In effect, PG&E’s Payment Withholding Scheme dupes UET into 

supplying gas to PG&E, which PG&E holds and uses knowing that its accounting methods ensure 

that UET will not be paid in full for such gas. 

59. PG&E’s Payment Withholding Scheme additionally benefits PG&E because UET 

must pay PG&E transportation and storage fees, which are based on the volume of gas UET provides 

for its customers. 

60. In other words, PG&E has engaged in a pattern and practice of intentionally 

withholding money from UET that PG&E received from UET customers for natural gas delivered by 

UET. PG&E benefits from its deception regardless of the action taken by UET. If UET cancels the 

customers’ accounts for non-payment, these customers revert back to PG&E for their natural-gas 

service. If UET does not cancel, PG&E continues to receive UET’s gas without paying for it and 

continues to charge UET to transport and store the gas. 

61. Citing its customer confidentiality policies, PG&E refuses to provide information 

relative to the payment status of UET’s customers. That is, PG&E only tells UET the amount of 

money PG&E has elected to apportion to UET. UET must trouble the customer for any other 

information, such as the amount paid to PG&E or how PG&E has credited the customer’s balance. 

62. In other words, having kept money owing to UET and perpetuated a scheme to 

engender cancellations from UET (for alleged non-payment) or to appropriate free gas and 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 12 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 17

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

storage/transportation fees, PG&E affirmatively prevents UET from uncovering the scheme by citing 

“customer privacy” concerns. 

PG&E’s Energy Credit Scheme 

63. PG&E engages in a pattern and practice of offsetting UET customers’ charges for 

natural gas delivered to UET’s customers with credits from non-UET related charges. 

64. Neither the parties’ contract nor the Gas Rules permit PG&E to offset PG&E’s 

customer credit structure with amounts owed to UET. 

65. For example, PG&E offers its customers certain subsidies and credits for obtaining 

some of their electricity through solar panels and the like. PG&E improperly applies these credits to 

UET’s gas commodities charges, such that the customer sees either that no payment is due for the 

month or that an amount is due that will not cover UET’s charges. 

66. In other words, PG&E accepts gas from UET for these customers and delivers gas to 

these customers on UET’s behalf, but informs the customer that s/he does not need to pay due to a 

PG&E energy credit. Effectively, PG&E defrauds UET of its gas and uses it to subsidize its customer 

credit programs. 

67. Some specific instances of this conduct include: 

a. By EDI file transmitted on or about October 30, 2013, PG&E notified UET that it had 

billed Customer Guadalupe M. (Account ID *317) for UET’s services. By EDI files 

transmitted on or about May 2, June 2, July 2, 2013 and then continuing on a monthly basis 

throughout 2013, and on or about January 31, March 4, and April 2, 2014 and continuing on 

a monthly basis throughout 2014—for a total of 20 such occurrences—PG&E similarly 

notified UET that it had billed Customer Guadalupe M. for UET’s gas commodity services. 

In fact, in each instance, PG&E either failed to bill the customer or used an energy credit on 

the bill to “mask” the amount owed to UET, causing the customer not to pay UET’s charges. 

PG&E continued to accept gas from UET, transported over interstate pipeline, and used the 

gas for this customer to determine storage and transport quantities, for which PG&E charged 

UET. 

b. By EDI file transmitted on or about May 19, 2013, PG&E notified UET that it had 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 13 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 18

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

billed Customer S. R. (Account ID *479) for UET’s services, when in fact, PG&E used a 

credit on the bill to “mask” the amount owed to UET, causing the customer not to pay UET’s 

charges. By EDI file transmitted on or about February 19, 2014, PG&E again notified UET 

that it had billed Customer S. R. for UET’s services, but PG&E had again used a credit on the 

bill to “mask” the amount owed to UET, causing the customer not to pay UET’s charges. By 

EDI file transmitted on or about August 18, 2014, PG&E again notified UET that it had billed 

Customer S. R. for UET’s services, but PG&E had again used a credit on the bill to “mask” 

the amount owed to UET, causing the customer not to pay UET’s charges. PG&E’s statements 

were false because PG&E had applied a credit to the customer’s entire bill, including to UET’s 

gas commodity charges; meaning, PG&E used UET’s gas commodity charges to offset the 

cost of its credit program. PG&E’s statements were also false because PG&E had informed 

UET that it had billed the customer when, in fact, it had affirmatively told the customer not

to pay UET’s charges. By EDI files transmitted on May 19, 2013, February 26, 2014 and 

August 24, 2014, PG&E notified UET that the customer was not paying UET’s charges. 

PG&E continued to accept gas from UET, transported over interstate pipeline, and used the 

gas for this customer to determine storage and transport quantities, for which PG&E charged 

UET. 

c. By EDI file transmitted on or about March 28, 2013, PG&E notified UET that it had 

billed Customer Castle Park LLC (Account ID *424) for UET’s services, when in fact, PG&E 

used a credit on the bill to “mask” the amount owed to UET, causing the customer not to pay 

UET’s charges. By EDI file transmitted on or about May 28, 2013, PG&E again notified UET 

that it had billed Customer Castle Park for UET’s services, but PG&E had again used a credit 

on the bill to “mask” the amount owed to UET, causing the customer not to pay UET’s 

charges. By EDI file transmitted on or about February 28, 2014, PG&E again notified UET 

that it had billed Customer Castle Park for UET’s services, but PG&E had again used a credit 

on the bill to “mask” the amount owed to UET, causing the customer not to pay UET’s 

charges. In each of the foregoing instances and continuing on a monthly basis throughout 

2014 PG&E used a credit on the bill to “mask” the amount owed to UET, causing the customer 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 14 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 19

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

not to pay UET’s charges. PG&E’s statements were false because PG&E had applied a credit 

to the customer’s entire bill, including to UET’s gas commodity charges; meaning, PG&E 

used UET’s gas commodity charges to offset the cost of its credit program. PG&E’s 

statements were also false because PG&E had informed UET that it had billed the customer 

when, in fact, it had affirmatively told the customer not to pay UET’s charges. By EDI files 

transmitted on April 4, 2013, June 5, 2013 and March 6, 2014, PG&E notified UET that the 

customer was not paying UET’s charges. PG&E continued to accept gas from UET, 

transported over interstate pipeline, and used the gas for this customer to determine storage 

and transport quantities, for which PG&E charged UET.

d. In addition, as alternative factual allegations, each of the incidents in Paragraphs 55ac may reflect instances of the Energy Credit Scheme. That is, with each “negative” bill PG&E 

applied an energy credit which “masked” the amount owed to UET, affirmatively indicating 

to the customer that s/he need not pay some or all of UET’s gas commodity charges. 

68. In each case set forth above, PG&E’s EDI file informed UET that it billed and was 

attempting to collect UET’s gas commodity charges when, in fact, PG&E had applied a credit such 

that the customer believed it did not owe UET anything. Further, PG&E’s EDI file informed UET 

that the customer was not paying UET’s gas commodity charges when, in fact, PG&E had induced 

the unwitting customer into not paying UET.

69. UET has cancelled hundreds of its customer accounts for non-payment based on what 

may be false information about the status of payments received from PG&E. 

70. UET has otherwise continued to supply gas to PG&E for its active customers—

including those detailed in Paragraphs 67a-c, above—not knowing that PG&E had not only failed to 

bill the customer but also affirmatively told the customer that s/he need not pay UET for its services. 

In effect, PG&E’s Energy Credit Scheme dupes UET into supplying gas to PG&E, which PG&E 

holds and uses knowing that its accounting methods ensure that UET will not be paid for such gas 

and reducing the amount of credit that PG&E owes to the customer. 

71. PG&E’s Energy Credit Scheme additionally benefits PG&E because UET must pay 

PG&E transportation and storage fees, which are based on the volume of gas UET provides for its 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 15 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 20

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

customers. 

72. In other words, PG&E has engaged in a pattern and practice of intentionally using 

UET’s gas and gas commodity charges to underwrite PG&E’s energy credit program. PG&E’s 

Energy Credit Scheme also caused UET to cancel customers (for alleged non-payment). These 

customers then default to PG&E’s gas commodity service. 

73. Citing its customer confidentiality policies, PG&E refuses to provide information 

relative to the payment status of UET’s customers. That is, PG&E will only tell UET the amount of 

money PG&E has elected to apportion to UET. UET must trouble the customer for any other 

information, such as the amount paid to PG&E or how PG&E has credited the customer’s balance. 

74. In other words, having kept money owing to UET and perpetuated a scheme to 

engender either cancellations from UET (for alleged non-payment) or free gas from UET (when UET 

continues to supply the customer), PG&E affirmatively prevents UET from uncovering the scheme 

by citing “customer privacy” concerns. 

The Reversal Scheme 

75. PG&E has engaged in a pattern and practice of withholding amounts due to UET 

where PG&E claims that the funds are due for “reversals.” 

76. PG&E’s EDI files contain information showing which accounts have “reversed.”

77. Some specific examples of this include: 

a. By EDI file transmitted on or about August 27, 2014, PG&E reversed Customer Bruno 

P. (Account No. *675), signaling to UET that the customer was not paying PG&E. This 

information was false because, at that point, PG&E had been paid in full and therefore PG&E 

could not shut-off or reverse the customer. 

b. By EDI file transmitted on or about September 19, 2014, PG&E informed UET that 

PG&E had reversed Customer S.R. (Account No. *182) signaling to UET that the customer 

was not paying PG&E. This information was false because, at that point, PG&E had been paid 

in full and therefore PG&E could not shut-off or reverse the customer. 

c. By EDI file sent on or about January 30, 2013, PG&E informed UET that customer 

Guadalupe M. (Account ID *317) paid $639.04 and $511.02 for UET’s services. That same 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 16 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 21

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

day, PG&E reversed these amounts. By EDI file sent on or about February 7, 2013, PG&E 

informed UET that the customer had again paid $639.04 and $511.02 as well as $198.63. That 

same day, PG&E again reversed those sums. By EDI file sent on or about March 11, 2013, 

PG&E informed UET that the customer again paid $511.02 and $198.63; again, PG&E 

reversed this sum that same day. On April 9, 2013, PG&E again allocated and reversed 

$198.63. This information was false because the customer has paid PG&E yet PG&E refused 

to remit that amount to UET. 

d. By EDI file sent on or about September 25, 2013, PG&E informed UET that Customer 

S.R. (Account ID *479) paid $655.42, $348.63, $320.73, $282.14, and $269.26 for UET’s 

services. That same day, PG&E reversed these amounts. By EDI file sent on or about October 

24, 2013, PG&E again informed UET that the customer had again paid $655.42, $348.63, 

$320.73, $282.14, and $269.26. That same day, PG&E again reversed those sums. By EDI 

file sent on or about November 25, 2013, PG&E informed UET that the customer again paid 

$655.42, $348.63, $320.73, $282.14, and $269.26; again, PG&E reversed these sums that 

same day. On December 26, 2013, PG&E again allocated and reversed all of these amounts. 

This information was false because the customer has paid PG&E yet PG&E refused to remit 

that amount to UET. 

78. In January 2015, PG&E permanently “reversed” thousands of UET customers, 

representing about $140,000 in reversals. In February 2015, PG&E “reversed” another $40,000 worth 

of customers. 

79. Similar to some of the examples in Paragraphs 77a-d, PG&E backdated many of these 

reversals, as though the reversal had occurred months beforehand. 

80. According to the EDI files sent by PG&E in September, October, November, and 

December 2014, many of the customers reversed by PG&E had made payments to UET in the prior 

months. PG&E recouped the amounts paid to UET by off-setting money owed to UET in February 

2015 and March 2015. 

81. PG&E has provided no explanation for this practice, and neither the parties’ contract 

nor the Gas Rules permit it. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 17 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 22

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

82. PG&E’s EDI files showing a reversal falsely informed UET that these customers had 

“reversed,” when in fact, they had not. 

83. Alternatively, PG&E’s EDI showing a payment were false because they stated that the 

customer had paid UET when, in fact, the customer had not. 

84. PG&E’s actions have damaged UET by eroding its customer base, denying it current 

and future revenue. PG&E’s actions have also damaged UET by disrupting its cash flow, which 

impacts nearly every aspect of its business. For example, UET cannot accurately project revenue or 

manage its credit facilities when PG&E mercurially reverses customers or offsets payments. 

85. The Schemes, moreover, diminish competition within the gas commodity market as a 

whole. Between 2012 and 2014—before implementation of the Schemes—the firm pipeline capacity 

(or “load”) for all CTAs grew from approximately 12% share of the total load to approximately 19%. 

Since implementation of the Schemes, however, the load has steadily and precipitously decreased to 

15.4% of the total load.

86. Further, the Schemes have resulted in increased consumer prices despite an ample 

supply of natural gas and despite decreasing wholesale prices. Between 2014 and present, the monthly 

California price of natural gas delivered to residential consumers has increased from $10 per thousand 

cubic feet to $12 per thousand cubic feet. During that same time period, the Citygate price for natural 

gas in California has decreased from approximately $6.00 per thousand cubic feet to approximately 

$3.00 per thousand cubic feet. In other words, consumers in California are paying 20% more for 

natural gas since implementation of the Schemes even though the Citygate price is 50% less than it 

was in 2014.

87. PG&E, as a corporation, does not acknowledge the Schemes. For example, on April 

30, 2015, David Reyes (Defendant Robinson’s subordinate) admitted in testimony, with PG&E’s inhouse counsel present, the facts underlying the Energy Credit Scheme (i.e., that non-cash credits are 

used to “mask” a CTA’s charges). The day before, on April 29, 2015, PG&E’s in-house counsel 

averred to the Commission that PG&E does not apply non-cash credits to a CTA’s charges. PG&E’s 

in-house counsel have taken no steps to correct or reconcile either statement. 

88. Even after its own employee testified about the Schemes, PG&E has done little or 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 18 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 23

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

nothing to curtail the unlawful acts of the Individual Defendants. PG&E profits from these acts in 

several ways: by charging UET transportation and storage fees; by increasing the bad debt of its 

competitors; and by reducing its own liability for mandatory credits. Finally, PG&E is able to charge 

consumers higher prices despite the falling Citygate cost of natural gas. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Violation of the Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968) 

89. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

88 of this Complaint. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL RICO COUNTS 

RICO COUNT I 

(Violation of RICO § 1962(c)) 

90. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 89 are incorporated herein by reference. 

91. This Count is against Defendants Torres, Robinson, and Chen (the “Count I 

Defendants”).

92. Consolidated Billing is an enterprise engaged in and whose activities affect interstate 

commerce. The Count I Defendants engaged in the predicate act of wire fraud by way of the Payment 

Withholding Scheme, the Energy Credit Scheme and the Reversal Scheme in furtherance of the 

Consolidated Billing enterprise. 

93. The Count I Defendants are employed by or associate with the enterprise. 

94. The Count I Defendants agreed to and did conduct and participate in the conduct of 

the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity and for the unlawful purpose of 

intentionally defrauding Plaintiff.

95. Specifically, Defendant Robinson directs her department to provide UET with the 

Electronic Data Interchange (“EDI”) files containing the false information as detailed in Paragraphs 

55, 67 and 77. Defendant Robinson directs her department to transmit this false information through 

interstate wires (i.e., over the internet and telephone network) to UET in Lakewood, Colorado. 

Defendant Robinson further directs her department to deceive UET when it inquires about these 

schemes, such as Robinson’s subordinate, David Reyes, did in September 2013. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 19 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 24

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

96. Defendant Torres oversees and directs the employees in Customer Operations to 

withhold payments from UET, as described supra in Paragraphs 55, 67 and 77. Defendant Torres 

similarly directs the employees in Customer Operations to apply PG&E energy credit programs 

(e.g., for solar panels, etc.) to UET’s charges, as described supra in Paragraph 67. Defendant Torres 

directs the employees in Customer Operations to apply reversals in the manner described in 

Paragraph 77. Finally, Defendant Torres directs the employees in Customer Operations to use 

customer care calls originating from the Payment Withholding Scheme and the Energy Credit 

Scheme to inform UET customers that they do not and will never pay less with UET’s services and 

to convince the customer to drop UET. 

97. Defendant Chen oversees and manages the CTA program. Defendant Chen manages 

and implements the Payment Withholding Scheme, the Energy Credit Scheme, and the Reversal 

Scheme. Specifically, Defendant Chen directs and coordinates these schemes between Defendant 

Robinson and Defendant Torres. 

98. The Payment Withholding Scheme, the Energy Credit Scheme, and the Reversal 

Scheme constitute wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Specifically, each of these Schemes 

concern the transmission of false information in the EDI files, with the intent of either withholding 

payments from UET, defrauding UET of its gas commodity to subsidize PG&E’s customer credit 

program, or reducing UET’s customer base. 

99. The Payment Withholding Scheme, the Energy Credit Scheme, and the Reversal 

Scheme involve use of interstate wires (i.e., the internet) to transmit the EDI files to UET. 

100. The Count I Defendants have evidenced specific intent to defraud UET because the 

practical effect of the Schemes is that the customer defaults to PG&E’s gas commodity service. The 

Count I Defendants have similarly evidenced specific intent to defraud UET because another 

practical effect of the Schemes is to withhold money from UET or to subsidize PG&E’s other 

business units. Finally, the Count I Defendants evidence specific intent to defraud UET since they 

have undertaken efforts to conceal the Schemes. 

101. The acts set forth above constitute a pattern of racketeering activity pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 1961(5). 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 20 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 25

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

102. This pattern poses the threat of continuing. The first predicate act of the Reversal 

Scheme, for example, dates back to 2013 and continues through December 2014. The Count I 

Defendants deploy the Payment Withholding Scheme and the Energy Credit Scheme each month 

with UET’s customers via transmission of the false EDI files. Further, in September, 2014, the 

Count I Defendants informed UET that the Schemes constitute PG&E’s regular manner of doing 

business.

103. As a direct and proximate result of the Count I Defendants’ racketeering activities 

and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), UET has been injured in its business and property in that the 

Count I Defendants defraud UET of money or gas commodities and have eroded UET’s customer 

base.

104. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against the Count I 

Defendant(s) as follows:

a. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated to be in the millions of 

dollars; 

b. Treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); 

c. Any other relief the Court determines is appropriate. 

RICO COUNT II 

(Violation of RICO § 1962(d)) 

105. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 104 are incorporated herein by reference. 

106. This Count is against Defendants Torres, Robinson, and Chen (the “Count II 

Defendant(s)”). 

107. As set forth above, the Count II Defendants agreed and conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 

§1962(c).

108. The Count II Defendants have intentionally conspired and agreed to directly and 

indirectly conduct and participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of 

racketeering activity. 

109. The Count II Defendants knew that their predicate acts were part of a pattern of 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 21 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 26

of 120
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 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

racketeering activity and agreed to the commission of those acts to further the schemes described 

above. That conduct constitutes a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1962(d). 

110. As a direct and proximate result of the Count II Defendants’ conspiracy to commit 

racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), UET has been injured in its business 

and property in that the Count II Defendants defrauded UET of money or gas commodities and have 

eroded UET’s customer base. 

111. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against the Count II 

Defendants as follows. 

a. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected to be in the millions 

of dollars; 

b. Treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); 

c. Any other relief the Court determines is appropriate. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Respondeat Superior/Agency) 

112. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

111 of this Complaint. 

113. PG&E is distinct from the Consolidated Billing RICO enterprise operated by 

Robinson, Chen, and Torres (the “Individual Defendants”). Specifically, Consolidated Billing is not 

part of PG&E’s voluntary business model nor is it intended to be a profitable line of business. Indeed, 

PG&E neither officially condones nor acknowledges the existence of the Schemes. PG&E officially 

denies, for example, the existence of the Energy Credit Scheme (as its in-house lawyers did on April 

29, 2015 in their averments before the CPUC), even though the Individual Defendants and their 

employees openly acknowledge the practice and despite the fact that PG&E benefits from it. 

114. PG&E has benefited from the racketeering activities of the Individual Defendants.

PG&E charges UET transportation and storage fees for natural gas. The Schemes increase the bad 

debt of PG&E’s competitors and increase PG&E’s market share for core gas customers. Most 

important, the Schemes reduce PG&E’s own liability for any mandatory credit. Finally, as a result of 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 22 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 27

of 120
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

- 23 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

the Schemes, PG&E is able to charge consumers higher prices than it otherwise could, even while 

the Citygate cost of natural gas falls. 

115. The Individual Defendants committed the racketeering activities within the time and 

space limits of their employment with PG&E. That is, the Individual Defendants committed the 

racketeering activities while they were working in PG&E’s offices and with PG&E’s systems. On 

information and belief, the Individual Defendants were motivated to commit the racketeering 

activities for the purpose of benefiting PG&E financially through increased profit and market share, 

and thereby benefitting themselves as the employees responsible. 

116. The racketeering activities were of a kind that the Individual Defendants were hired 

by PG&E to perform legitimately. That is, each Individual Defendant used his/her position at PG&E 

to perpetuate the Schemes by committing the predicate acts under the auspices of their usual job 

responsibilities. For example, Defendant Torres oversees the employees in Customer Operations but 

directs them to withhold payments from UET in furtherance of the Payment Withholding Scheme, as 

described supra in Paragraphs 55, 67 and 77. Defendant Torres similarly oversees the employees in 

Customer Operations but directs them to apply PG&E energy credit programs (e.g., for solar panels, 

etc.) to UET’s charges in furtherance of the Energy Credit Scheme, as described supra in Paragraph 

67. Defendant Torres also directs the employees in Customer Operations to apply reversals in the 

manner described in Paragraph 77 in furtherance of the Reversal Scheme. Finally, Defendant Torres 

directs the employees in Customer Operations to use customer care calls to inform UET customers 

that they do not and will never pay less with UET’s services and to convince the customer to drop 

UET, in furtherance of the Payment Withholding Scheme and the Energy Credit Scheme. Similarly, 

Defendants Robinson and Chen direct the employees in ESP Services and EDI Operations to compile 

and send the EDI files over the wires containing the false information set forth in Paragraphs 55, 67 

and 77. None of the Individual Defendants would be able to perpetuate the Schemes without the 

authority vested in them through their positions at PG&E. 

117. PG&E eventually learned of the Schemes, as evidenced by the presence of its in-house 

counsel at during the testimony of David Reyes on April 30, 2015 but, nonetheless, did nothing to 

stop them. As their employer, PG&E not only supplied the Individual Defendants with the means to 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 23 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 28

of 120
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

- 24 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

perpetuate the Schemes, but PG&E could have stopped the Individual Defendants but, to date, has 

not done so. 

118. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against PG&E as 

follows: 

a. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected to be in the millions 

of dollars; 

b. Treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); 

c. Any other relief the Court determines is appropriate. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Attempt to Monopolize in Violation of the Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2) 

119. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

118 of this Complaint. 

120. A market exists for the provision of natural gas to Core Customers in Northern 

California. The geographical boundaries of this market are Eureka in the north to Bakersfield in the 

south, and from the Pacific Ocean to the Sierra Nevada (the “Relevant Geography”). Core Customers 

are all residential customers within the Relevant Geography regardless of load size, commercial 

customers with annual loads below 250,000 therms, and those commercial customers with annual 

loads above 250,000 therms who elect to receive the higher reliability associated with core service. 

The relevant product in this market is natural gas, which is a fossil fuel extracted from the earth and 

largely comprised of methane and other hydrocarbons. The natural gas sold to residential and small 

business customers for use as an energy source is fungible, may be interchanged regardless of the 

provider, and is not distinguishable by quality. It can be used for heating, cooking, and other 

household applications.

121. PG&E is the traditional utility and, until 1991, held a state-sanctioned monopoly in 

the Relevant Geography. Consequently, PG&E currently owns and operates all the infrastructure that 

physically stores and transports natural gas to Core Customers within the Relevant Geography. As a 

result of this monopoly, 100% of the Core Customers receive their gas via pipes, meters, and other 

facilities owned and operated by PG&E. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 24 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 29

of 120
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

- 25 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

122. PG&E also holds a near-monopoly on natural gas billing and collections operations 

within the Relevant Geography. Nearly 100% of the Core Customers in the Relevant Geography 

receive a monthly utility bill from PG&E, whether for natural gas, the transportation of those services, 

or both.

123. The CTAs compete with PG&E to sell natural gas to Core Customers within the 

Relevant Geography. Approximately twenty-two CTAs operate in the Relevant Geography using 

PG&E’s infrastructure. 

124. Recognizing that establishing utility billing and collection services created an unfair 

barrier to entry, the CPUC requires PG&E to share its billing and collection services with CTAs. 

Approximately 18 CTAs use PG&E as their billing and collections agents (i.e., those CTAs use 

PG&E Consolidated Billing), paying PG&E about $.70 per customer per month for this service. A 

CTA like UET cannot practically or reasonably establish its own billing and collection services within 

the Relevant Geography and continue to offer natural gas to core customers at competitive prices. 

Thus, without the use of PG&E’s billing and collections services, CTAs like UET cannot compete 

with PG&E in the natural gas market. Consequently, PG&E’s billing and collections services 

constitute an essential facility. Though the CPUC has compelled PG&E to share its billing and 

collection services, the CPUC lacks the effective power to regulate the scope, terms, and manner in 

which those services are provided to CTAs and has failed to prevent the predatory Schemes from 

occurring.

125. Because the number of Core Customers varies and their individual quantum of gas is 

difficult to encapsulate, an entity’s given market share is typically measured in terms of “load”— the 

percentage of the overall natural gas in the Relevant Geography the entity supplies In 2012, PG&E 

supplied 88% of the total load to Core Customers in the Relevant Geography, while all CTAs 

combined supplied 12%. By 2014, the CTAs increased their market share to 19%, while PG&E’s 

share decreased to 81% of the total load to Core Customers in the Relevant Geography. 

126. PG&E sets the price for its natural gas to Core Customers on a monthly basis by 

application of a regulated formula. While the formula itself does not change, PG&E exercises 

discretion over variables, such as calculation of its purchase price, expenses, overcharges, and the 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 25 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 30

of 120
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

- 26 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

like, to include in the formula. PG&E publishes this price once per month, typically around the 

twenty-fifth day, without prior approval from the CPUC. CTAs using PG&E’s billing and collections 

must provide their monthly price to PG&E by the first of each month. 

127. PG&E has committed overt predatory and exclusionary acts demonstrating its specific 

intention to destroy competition for natural gas commodity service to Core Customers in the Relevant 

Geography by providing its billing and collections services in a fraudulent, unfair, unreasonable, and 

discriminatory manner, denying the CTAs fair and reasonable access to an essential facility. 

Specifically, PG&E uses its role as the CTAs’ billing agent to withhold money due and owing to the 

CTAs by operation of the acts set forth in the Payment Withholding Scheme, which misleads the 

CTA into believing that the customer is not paying. The Energy Credit Scheme deceives both the 

customer into believing that no payment is due to the CTA and the CTA into believing that the 

customer is willfully not paying. The CTAs, including UET, either disconnect these customers, 

defaulting them back to PG&E’s gas commodity service, or attempt collection efforts which frustrate 

the customer into returning to PG&E’s service. Finally, with the Reversal Scheme, PG&E simply 

disconnects Core Customers within the Relevant Geography from the CTAs’ natural gas service and 

returns them to PG&E’s natural gas service. These fraudulent, unfair, unreasonable, and 

discriminatory Schemes lack any legitimate business justification and evidence PG&E’s specific 

intent to destroy competition in the natural gas market. Such Schemes are perpetrated against the 

CTAs not by competitive zeal, but by anticompetitive malice. 

128. PG&E, therefore, intentionally leverages its monopoly in its billing-and-collections 

services to expand its market share in the deregulated natural gas commodity market to Core 

Customers. 

129. The Schemes have several anti-competitive results. First, the Schemes significantly 

increase operating expenses for CTAs. For example, CTAs must expend large sums—typically 

millions of dollars annually—on marketing costs just to maintain their customer base as a result of 

the Reversal Scheme. Quite literally, the Schemes eliminate the CTAs customer base nearly as 

quickly as a CTA, spending millions of dollars each year, can build it up. CTAs have no ability to 

expand their output. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 26 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 31

of 120
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

- 27 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

130. In addition, CTAs have large carrying costs because the Payment Withholding Scheme 

and the Energy Credit Scheme ensure that the CTA will be either paid months late or not at all (that 

is, the CTAs must buy the natural gas and expend money storing and transporting it while PG&E 

prohibits payment from the customer). 

131. The Schemes are perpetuated against all CTAs using PG&E’s billing and collections 

services and have resulted in significant loss of the CTA’s market share and increased costs to the 

CTAs. UET alone has lost about half of its customers as a result of the Schemes. On June 9, 2016, 

another competitor, North Star Gas Company d/b/a YEP, filed a Complaint in the Northern District 

of California (styled North Star Gas Co. v. Pacific Gas and Electric, Case No. 3:15-CV-02575-HSG) 

alleging, inter alia, that it has similarly lost tens of thousands from its peak of 54,000 Core Customers 

in the Relevant Geography as a result of the Schemes. Similarly, other CTAs, such as Tiger Energy, 

have reported that PG&E carries out the Schemes against their Core Customers in the Relevant 

Geography and that, similar to UET and North Star, each CTA has reported loss of customer and 

market share. 

132. In short, the Schemes, deny the CTAs fair and reasonable access to an essential facility 

controlled exclusively by PG&E, drive up the CTAs’ expenses and, by winnowing their customer 

base, reduce the CTAs’ effective economies of scale, preventing the CTAs from pricing natural gas 

as competitively against PG&E’s price as they once could. In 2012, for example, UET routinely 

undersold by PG&E by about 17%; now, UET’s prices are only about 5% less than PG&E. Other 

CTAs simply cannot undersell the price set by PG&E as a result of anti-competitive effect of the 

Schemes. 

133. Put another way, the predatory Schemes force CTAs into a Hobson’s Choice: remain 

with PG&E’s billing and collections services, operated in an predatory manner; or institute separate 

billing-and-collections, already determined to be a barrier to entry.

134. Indeed, as a result of the Schemes, PG&E increased its share of the load—and, 

therefore, its share of the natural gas market for Core Customers in the Relevant Geography—from 

81% to 84.6% in just the two years since implementing the predatory Schemes. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 27 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 32

of 120
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

- 28 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

135. Consumers themselves have been harmed by PG&E’s anticompetitive conduct since 

PG&E has been able to raise its prices without fear of competition from the CTAs. For example, Core 

Customers have experienced a 20% increase in gas prices at a time when wholesale gas prices have 

decreased by 50%, as set forth in Paragraph 86.

136. The Schemes pose a dangerous probability of allowing PG&E to achieve market 

power. The Schemes have erected barriers to entry and expansion in the Relevant Geography and 

resulted in a reduction in competition in the retail natural gas commodity market. Several companies 

that retail natural gas in other states, such as Colorado-based Aurora NG, will not attempt entry as a 

result of PG&E’s predatory practices. Other CTAs have allowed the Reversal Scheme to dwindle 

their customer base for ultimate withdrawal from the market. One such CTA (not UET) has seen its 

customer base decline from about 40,000 to just around 5,000 since January 2015; this company will 

not invest in acquiring additional customers because of the Schemes. PG&E’s schemes have made 

entry and expansion unprofitable, despite the fact that PG&E’s gas supply is priced above competitive 

levels, due to the increased costs of marketing, customer retention, and carrying costs. 

137. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against PG&E as 

follows: 

a. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected to be in the millions 

of dollars; 

b. Treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs as provided in 15 U.S.C. § 15; 

c. Any other relief the Court determines is appropriate. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 

138. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

136 of this Complaint. 

139. As set forth above, because UET has selected the option of Consolidated PG&E 

Billing, PG&E acts as UET’s billing and collections agent for all of UET’s customers in PG&E’s 

service area. 

140. Specifically, PG&E calculates the amounts owed by UET’s customers for natural gas, 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 28 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 33

of 120
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

- 29 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

sends a bill containing UET’s charges to UET’s customers, collects payments from UET’s customers, 

and remits (or is supposed to remit) those amounts to UET. 

141. Under this arrangement, PG&E represents UET with respect to billing and collection 

issues to UET’s customers and is entrusted with the duty to receive and disburse UET’s money and 

to keep accurate records of these transactions. Because they are UET’s customers, UET has a right to 

control and supervise PG&E’s actions with respect to UET’s billing and collections activities. 

142. Accordingly, PG&E is UET’s agent under Cal. Civ. Code § 2295, and owes UET a 

fiduciary duty of loyalty.

143. PG&E has retained moneys that it collected from UET’s customers for its own benefit 

and has failed and refused to turn those amounts over to UET. This is a breach of PG&E’s duty of 

loyalty to UET. 

144. In addition, PG&E has used its special relationship of trust as UET’s billing and 

collections agent as well as its position as the default monopoly natural gas provider to improperly 

compete with UET, including making false representations to UET about the status of its customer 

accounts and also encouraging UET’s customers to cancel UET’s services so that the customer will 

revert back to PG&E. 

145. UET has been damaged by PG&E’s breach of its fiduciary duty to UET, including 

amounts that PG&E has wrongfully withheld from UET and customers terminated without reason 

due to PG&E’s fraudulent representations to UET. 

146. PG&E’s breach of its duty of loyalty and fraud were done intentionally and with 

malice designed to injure UET. Specifically, as set forth above in Paragraphs 46 through 84, PG&E 

made repeated false statements to UET about the amounts owed and paid by UET’s customers, and 

wrongfully allocated UET customer payments to PG&E’s own charges. 

147. PG&E’s breach of its duty of loyalty and fraud were made with the advance 

knowledge and authorization of William H. Chen, the manager of PG&E’s Account Services group 

for core transport agents. 

148. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against PG&E as 

follows: 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 29 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 34

of 120
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

- 30 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

a. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected to be in the millions 

of dollars; 

b. Exemplary and punitive damages as permitted by law; 

c. Its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as permitted by law; 

d. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Intentional Misrepresentation) 

149. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

147 of this Complaint. 

150. PG&E made repeated, intentionally false statements to UET every time that PG&E 

used the wires to transmit information about UET’s customer accounts which reflected that UET’s 

customers had not paid for all of UET’s charges, but where in fact the customer had either fully paid 

for UET’s charges of where PG&E told the customer not to pay UET’s charges. 

151. These false statements were made as set forth in Paragraphs 55, 67, and 77 above and 

included affirmative false statements as to whether a customer had paid for UET’s charges, as well 

as the intentional concealment of the fact that the customer had, in fact, paid UET’s energy charges, 

but that PG&E retained those monies and applied them to its own customer accounts. 

152. PG&E intended that UET rely on PG&E’s false statements and intentional 

concealment. UET justifiably relied on PG&E’s false statements about its customers by sending 

disconnection notices to these customers when, in fact, the customer’s UET charges were fully paid 

to PG&E.

153. PG&E’s intentional false statements have caused UET damages, including lost 

revenues and income unlawfully withheld by PG&E, lost customers, lost market share, out of pocket 

costs associated with trying to collect customer accounts which PG&E falsely represented were not 

paid, and costs associated with trying to repair customer relationships for customers which UET 

mistakenly attempted to collect from when in fact the customer had fully paid all of UET’s charges 

but PG&E had wrongfully withheld those amounts from UET. Through its actions, PG&E intended 

to cause UET injury. Further, PG&E carried on its actions with a willful and conscious disregard of 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 30 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 35

of 120
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

- 31 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

the rights of UET and UET’s customers. 

154. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against PG&E as 

follows: 

a. Damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated to be in the millions of 

dollars; 

b. Exemplary and punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294; 

c. Its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as permitted by law; 

d. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Negligent Misrepresentation) 

155. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

153 of this Complaint. 

156. PG&E made repeated false statements to UET every time that PG&E used the wires 

to transmit information about UET’s customer accounts which reflected that UET’s customers had 

not paid for all of UET’s charges, but where in fact the customer had fully paid for UET’s charges 

but PG&E intentionally allocated those amounts to PG&E’s portions of the customer’s bill. These 

misrepresentations were material and were made without PG&E having reasonable grounds for 

believing the misrepresentations to be true. 

157. These misrepresentations were made as set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 84 above 

and included affirmative false statements as to whether a customer had paid for UET’s charges, as 

well as the intentional concealment of the fact that the customer had, in fact, paid UET’s energy 

charges, but that PG&E retained those monies and applied them to its own customer accounts. 

158. PG&E intended that UET rely on PG&E’s misrepresentations. UET justifiably relied 

on PG&E’s misrepresentations about its customers by disconnecting its customers when, in fact, the 

customer’s UET charges were fully paid to PG&E. 

159. PG&E’s misrepresentations described above have caused UET damages, including 

lost revenues and income unlawfully withheld by PG&E, lost customers, lost market share, out of 

pocket costs associated with trying to collect customer accounts which PG&E falsely represented 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 31 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 36

of 120
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

- 32 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

were not paid, and costs associated with trying to repair customer relationships for customers which 

UET mistakenly attempted to collect from when in fact the customer had fully paid all of UET’s 

charges but PG&E had wrongfully withheld those amounts from UET. 

160. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against PG&E as 

follows: 

a. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected to be in the millions 

of dollars; 

b. Exemplary and punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294; 

c. Its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as permitted by law; 

d. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Intentional Interference with Contract) 

161. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

159 of this Complaint. 

162. UET and its customers are parties to a valid contract under which UET provides 

natural gas and the customers pay UET’s charges for that gas. 

163. PG&E is aware of UET’s contracts with its customers. 

164. PG&E’s intentional acts are designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contracts 

between UET and its customers. Specifically, PG&E made repeated, intentionally false statements to 

UET every time that PG&E used the wires to transmit information about UET’s customer accounts 

which reflected that UET’s customers had not paid for all of UET’s charges, but where in fact the 

customer had fully paid for UET’s charges but PG&E intentionally allocated those amounts to 

PG&E’s portions of the customer’s bill. 

165. In addition, PG&E’s customer service representatives have encouraged UET 

customers to cancel UET’s services during calls to discuss billing issues, which is an abuse of 

PG&E’s status as UET’s billings and collections agent. 

166. PG&E intended to interfere with contracts between UET and its customers by inducing 

UET to send disconnection notices to these customers when, in fact, the customers’ UET charges 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 32 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 37

of 120
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

- 33 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

were fully paid to PG&E. 

167. Certain UET customers have cancelled their contracts with UET based on PG&E’s 

interference with the contracts between UET and these customers. 

168. PG&E’s intentional interference with the contracts between UET and its customers 

have caused UET damages, including lost revenues and income unlawfully withheld by PG&E, lost 

customers, lost market share, out-of-pocket costs associated with trying to collect customer accounts 

which PG&E falsely represented were not paid, and costs associated with trying to repair customer 

relationships for customers which UET mistakenly attempted to collect from when in fact the 

customer had fully paid all of UET’s charges but PG&E had wrongfully withheld those amounts from 

UET. 

169. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against PG&E as 

follows: 

a. Damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated to be in the millions of 

dollars; 

b. Damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294; 

c. Its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as permitted by law; 

d. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage) 

170. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

168 of this Complaint. 

171. UET and its customers have an economic relationship in which UET provides natural 

gas and the customers pay UET’s charges for that gas and under which there is a probability of future 

economic benefit to UET. 

172. PG&E is aware of UET’s economic relationship with its customers. 

173. PG&E’s intentional acts are designed to induce a breach or disruption of the economic 

relationship between UET and its customers. Specifically, PG&E made repeated, intentionally false 

statements to UET every time that PG&E used the wires to transmit information about UET’s 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 33 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 38

of 120
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

- 34 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

customer accounts which reflected that UET’s customers had not paid for all of UET’s charges, but 

where in fact the customer had fully paid for UET’s charges but PG&E intentionally allocated those 

amounts to PG&E’s portions of the customer’s bill. 

174. PG&E intended to interfere with the economic relationship between UET and its 

customers by inducing UET to send disconnection notices to these customers when, in fact, the 

customers’ UET charges were fully paid to PG&E. 

175. In addition, PG&E’s customer service representatives have encouraged UET 

customers to cancel UET’s services during calls to discuss billing issues, which is an abuse of 

PG&E’s status as UET’s billings and collections agent. 

176. Certain UET customers have cancelled their economic relationship with UET based 

on PG&E’s interference with the economic relationship between UET and these customers. 

177. PG&E’s intentional interference with the economic relationship between UET and its 

customers have caused UET damages, including lost revenues and income unlawfully withheld by 

PG&E, lost customers, lost market share, out of pocket costs associated with trying to collect 

customer accounts which PG&E falsely represented were not paid, and costs associated with trying 

to repair customer relationships for customers which UET mistakenly attempted to collect from when 

in fact the customer had fully paid all of UET’s charges but PG&E had wrongfully withheld those 

amounts from UET. 

178. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against PG&E as 

follows: 

a. Damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated to be in the millions of 

dollars; 

b. Exemplary and punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294; 

c. Its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as permitted by law; 

d. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.) 

179. UET incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 34 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 39

of 120
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

- 35 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

177 of this Complaint. 

180. PG&E’s actions as described above are unlawful, unfair, anti-competitive, and/or 

fraudulent business practices as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.. 

181. PG&E’s unlawful, unfair, anti-competitive, and/or fraudulent business practices have 

caused UET damages and irreparable harm. 

182. UET seeks restitution of all amounts paid by UET customers to PG&E that PG&E has 

not remitted to UET, plus applicable interest. 

183. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against PG&E as 

follows: 

a. Restitution of all amounts paid by UET customers for UET natural gas charges which 

are being wrongfully held by PG&E;

b. Its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as permitted by law; 

c. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC d/b/a Blue Spruce Energy 

Services prays for judgment against Defendants Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Albert Torres, 

Bill Chen, and Tanisha Robinson as follows: 

 (1) Actual damages on all applicable Counts in an amount to be proven at trial; 

 (2) Treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); 

 (3) Treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs against Pacific Gas and Electric 

 Company as provided in 15 U.S.C. § 15; 

 (4) Exemplary and punitive damages as permitted by law; 

 (5) Any other attorneys’ fees and costs as permitted by law; and 

 (6) Such other and further relief as may be appropriate. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 35 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 40

of 120
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

- 36 - 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

JURY DEMAND 

UET respectfully demands a trial by jury on all of its claims so triable as permitted by law. 

Dated: May 13, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

 s/ Thomas D. Leland

Thomas D. Leland (Pro Hac) 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 36 of 36

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 41

of 120
Exhibit 2 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 42

of 120
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-02383-RS 

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION 

United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”) advances federal and state law claims against 

defendants Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”), Albert Torres, and William Chen, 

challenging what UET asserts are unlawful billing, collection, and payment practices that 

misappropriate funds, defraud UET, and undermine UET’s ability to compete with PG&E for 

natural gas customers. Both parties now move for partial summary judgment on a limited set of 

claims and issues. For the reasons explained below, PG&E’s motion is granted as to UET’s RICO 

and respondeat superior claims but denied as to UET’s “payment withholding scheme” theory of 

liability and UET’s challenge to PG&E’s customer privacy and confidentiality policies. UET’s 

motion for summary judgment as to PG&E’s liability for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional

interference with contract is denied.1

1

 The parties have filed multiple sealing motions related to materials associated with their 

summary judgment filings. PG&E’s motions (Dkt. Nos. 193, 207, and 219) are granted. UET’s 

motions (Dkt. Nos. 197 and 208) are also granted consistent with the following limitations 

outlined in the supporting declarations filed by PG&E’s counsel. With regard to Dkt. No. 197, 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 1 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 43

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

2

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

II. BACKGROUND 

PG&E is the traditional public utility in Northern California. Until the 1990s, it held a 

state-sanctioned monopoly over the distribution of natural gas and thus owns and operates the 

entire infrastructure for storing and transporting natural gas to customers in Northern California. 

As a public utility, PG&E is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”).

UET is a Core Transport Agent (“CTA”), meaning it buys gas on the open market and sells 

it to customers using PG&E’s distribution system. Currently, UET serves approximately 36,000 

customers in PG&E’s service area. The geographic boundaries of this area extend from Eureka in 

the north to Bakersfield in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Sierra Nevada 

mountains in the east. 

PG&E is required by state law to offer CTAs the option of consolidating billing. Under 

this program, both the CTA’s charges and PG&E’s charges appear on a single, consolidated 

statement. The customer pays both sets of charges with a single check to PG&E which is 

responsible for remitting payment to the CTA. UET has elected to participate in the consolidated 

billing program. 

The instant dispute centers on UET’s claims that PG&E and certain of its employees 

engage in unlawful activity related to implementation of consolidated billing. Specifically, UET 

identifies three separate schemes by which it claims PG&E defrauds UET and its customers. In the 

“payment withholding scheme,” PG&E uses its role as billing agent to withhold money owed to 

UET, misleading UET into believing its customers are not paying. In the “energy credit scheme,” 

PG&E applies credits from its own services or programs to UET’s gas charges, effectively 

misappropriating UET’s charges to offset the money PG&E owes its customers. In the “reversal 

scheme,” PG&E inappropriately “reverses” UET customer charges, disconnecting customers from 

 

Exhibit K2 may be filed under seal. Exhibits D1 and N3 may be filed as redacted in the versions 

attached to the Declaration of Seth R. Sias (Dkt. No. 200). With regard to Dkt. No. 208, Exhibit 

H3 may be filed under seal. Exhibits C7 and G1 may be filed as redacted in the versions attached 

to the Declaration of Seth R. Sias (Dkt. No. 211). 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 2 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 44

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

3

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UET’s natural gas service and thereby returning them to PG&E’s natural gas service. 

The coordinating entity behind these schemes, according to UET, is an associated-in-fact 

RICO enterprise it calls “Consolidated Billing.” UET originally sued three individual 

defendants—Albert Torres (Vice President of Customer Operations at PG&E until his retirement 

in 2017), William Chen (a former Manager of PG&E’s ESP Services Group and currently a 

regulatory analyst), and Tanisha Robinson (a Supervisor in Complex Billing)—for their 

participation in the Consolidated Billing enterprise. Ms. Robinson, however, was recently 

dismissed from the case. 

Several issues in dispute in the instant motions arise out of the import and effect of an 

administrative proceeding before the CPUC in 2016. That proceeding (the “GT&S Proceeding” or 

“GT&S Decision”) addressed PG&E’s application for approval of rates for gas transmission and 

storage for the period 2015 through 2017. UET participated in the proceeding as an interested 

party as did the Core Transport Agent Consortium (CTAC), a coalition of CTAs to which UET 

belongs. The CPUC’s final decision on PG&E’s application was issued on June 23, 2016.2

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

The purpose of summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported

claims or defenses.” Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary judgment is 

therefore proper where the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits demonstrate that there is “no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there 

2

 The parties seek judicial notice of the GT&S Decision and of various documents including or 

related to: public tariff schedules filed by PG&E, other official CPUC acts, and materials filed 

with the CPUC as part of its proceedings. See PG&E’s RJNs (Dkt. Nos. 191, 205, and 218) and 

UET’s RJNs (Dkt. Nos. 195, 210, and 215). Neither party has objected to the other’s requests. 

Judicial notice may be taken of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it either is 

generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction, or can be readily determined from

sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The documents 

sought to be noticed satisfy this standard. Accordingly, the parties’ requests are granted. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 3 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 45

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those 

portions of the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a genuine 

issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Where the moving party will have the burden of 

proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could 

find other than for the moving party. In contrast, on an issue for which the opposing party will 

have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of 

evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the 

pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there is a 

genuine issue for trial. Only disputes over material facts matter. “Factual disputes that are 

irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The court must draw all 

justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, including questions of credibility and of 

the weight to be accorded particular evidence. Id. at 255. It is not the task of the court, however, to 

scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 

(9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of identifying, with reasonable particularity, 

the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make this 

showing, “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. 

IV. DISCUSSION 

The defendants move for partial summary judgment in their favor as to: 1) UET’s claim 

against the Individual Defendants for violation of Sections 1962(c) and 1962(d) of the Racketeer 

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968; 2) UET’s related 

claim for respondeat superior liability against PG&E; 3) UET’s “payment withholding scheme” 

theory of liability; and 4) UET’s challenge to PG&E’s customer privacy and confidentiality 

policies. UET, by contrast, moves for partial summary judgment as to PG&E’s liability for: 1) 

breach of fiduciary duty; and 2) intentional interference with contract. Each of the claims and 

issues raised is addressed in turn below. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 4 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 46

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

5

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

A. PG&E’s Motion for Summary Judgment

1. RICO 

Section 1962(c) of RICO makes it unlawful for any person associated with an alleged 

racketeering enterprise “to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such 

enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” Section 1962(d) provides “[i]t shall 

be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) 

of this section.” To defeat the motion for summary judgment, UET must point to issues of fact 

regarding the existence of a RICO enterprise.3

 It has failed to do so. 

RICO defines an enterprise as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or 

other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal 

entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Though this language is broad, the Supreme Court has provided 

guidance. In United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981), the Court defined a RICO enterprise 

as “a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of 

conduct.” Id. at 583. More recently, the Court has noted that an “associated-in-fact” enterprise—

like the one alleged here—“must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships 

among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to 

pursue the enterprise’s purpose.” Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 946 (2009). 

Here, UET’s evidence does not a support a finding that the asserted RICO enterprise has 

the required structural features. The enterprise UET identifies—“Consolidated Billing”—is made 

up of PG&E employees operating within different departments supervised by Defendants Torres 

and Chen, and Tanisha Robinson. These individuals, UET asserts, pursue the common purpose of 

making it harder for UET to do business by implementing various schemes (involving regular and 

ongoing acts of wire fraud) which cause UET to receive money it is owed in an untimely fashion 

3

 The complete elements of the Section 1962(c) claim that UET would need to prove at trial are: 

“(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as 

‘predicate acts’) (5) causing injury to plaintiff’s business or property.” Grimmett v. Brown, 75 

F.3d 506, 510 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)). 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 5 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 47

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

or not at all. Yet the evidence relied upon by UET to demonstrate coordination and 

communication between these individuals is decidedly lacking. This is especially true of the 

evidence against Defendants Torres and Chen whom UET accuses of supervising and 

“collaborat[ing] directly in furtherance of the enterprise.” UET’s Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. 

at 25. UET points to no phone calls between Torres and Chen, no emails sent directly between 

them, and no in-person meetings. 

UET correctly points out that it is not required to show participants in the Consolidated 

Billing enterprise are organized into a formal unit. Odom v. Microsoft, 486 F.3d 541, 551-52 (9th 

Cir. 2007). It does not need to prove, for instance, that Chen and Torres sat at the top of a welldefined “hierarchical structure or chain of command.” Boyle, 556 U.S. at 948 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). It does, however, have to point to some facts showing Chen and Torres at least 

had some awareness of the common purpose the RICO enterprise they allegedly supervised was 

trying to pursue—e.g., that they discussed their shared goal of defrauding UET and/or 

communicated that goal to others associated with the alleged enterprise so as to better coordinate 

their efforts. Given the absence of such a showing, UET cannot prove the alleged participants in 

Consolidated Billing were “associated together” in any meaningful sense beyond being PG&E 

employees doing jobs related to billing CTAs. This is not enough to generate a factual question as 

to the existence of a RICO enterprise for a reasonable jury. Accordingly, summary judgment is 

granted in favor of the defendants with regard to UET’s RICO claims.4

 2. Respondeat Superior 

UET’s claim for respondeat superior liability against PG&E depends on the existence of a 

viable RICO claim against the individual defendants. See Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A., 298 F.3d 768, 775 (9th Cir. 1992) (“respondeat superior liability attaches only if an 

employer benefitted from its employee’s RICO violation”). As discussed above, UET has no 

4

 As an alternative ground for summary judgment on the RICO claims, defendants argue UET 

cannot establish a predicate act of wire fraud. Because UET has failed to establish the existence of 

a RICO enterprise, its ability to prove wire fraud need not be reached. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 6 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 48

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

7

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

viable underlying RICO claim. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of PG&E as to 

UET’s claim for respondeat superior liability.

 3. “Payment Withholding Scheme” and PG&E’s Confidentiality Policies

 The defendants advance two separate grounds they claim entitle them to summary 

judgment on UET’s “payment withholding scheme” theory of liability and UET’s challenge to 

PG&E’s confidentiality policies. First, they argue the doctrines of res judicata and collateral 

estoppel preclude UET from relitigating these issues as both have already been raised and fully 

litigated before the CPUC. Second, even if adjudicating the issues were appropriate, doing so 

would interfere with the CPUC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Neither ground is compelling. 

i. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel 

“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, treats a judgment, once rendered, as the full measure of 

relief to be accorded between the parties on the same claim or cause of action.” Hydranautics v. 

FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2000). “An action is barred under res judicata 

where (1) the prior litigation involved the same parties or their privies, (2) the prior litigation was 

terminated by a final judgment on the merits, and (3) the prior litigation involved the same ‘claim’

or ‘cause of action’ as the later suit.” Id. at 888. 

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, “applies only where it is established that (1) the 

issue necessarily decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be 

relitigated; (2) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party 

against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first 

proceeding.” Id. at 885 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “The party asserting preclusion bears the 

burden of showing with clarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judgment.”

Offshore Sportswear, Inc. v. Vuarnet Int'l, B.V., 114 F.3d 848, 850 (9th Cir. 1997). “Collateral 

estoppel is inappropriate if there is any doubt as to whether an issue was actually litigated in a 

prior proceeding.” See also Eureka Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Am. Cas. Co., 873 F.2d 229, 233 

(9th Cir. 1989). 

PG&E points to the 2016 GT&S Proceeding as the basis for its invocation of res judicata 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 7 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 49

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

8

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

and collateral estoppel. As discussed previously, that proceeding addressed PG&E’s application 

for approval of rates for gas transmission and storage for the period 2015 through 2017. UET and 

the CTA consortium to which it belongs (CTAC) participated as interested parties. 

As an initial matter, PG&E’s assertion of res judicata is misguided. As noted above, res 

judicata applies to claims. Yet PG&E asks the Court to invoke res judicata to preclude UET’s 

litigation of two issues: a) the payment withholding scheme theory of liability; and b) UET’s 

challenge to PG&E’s confidentiality policies. Even assuming PG&E’s attack on these issues is a 

roundabout way of precluding UET from litigating the tort claims they support, the assertion of res 

judicata is inappropriate. Res judicata does not apply to claims that the first forum was 

incompetent to hear, Freeman v. San Diego Ass’n of Realtors, 322 F.3d 1133, 1142 n.8 (9th Cir. 

2003), and UET could not bring its tort claims in the GT&S Proceeding because the CPUC could 

not provide a remedy for those claims. See Vila v. Tahoe Southside Water Util., 233 Cal. App. 2d 

469, 479 (Ct. App. 1965) (“The commission has no authority to award damages.”)

 The pertinent question is thus whether collateral estoppel applies. Application of the first 

analytical factor makes clear that it does not. The issues necessarily decided at the GT&S 

Proceeding are not the same issues that PG&E now seeks to preclude. 

With regard to the payment withholding scheme, the relevant portion of the GT&S 

Proceeding addressed the tariffs governing PG&E’s administration of the consolidated billing 

program: Gas Rules 8, 11, and 23. Gas Rule 23 generally requires that PG&E allocate partial 

payments proportionately among CTA and PG&E charges. Appl. of PG&E Proposing Cost of 

Serv. & Rates for Gas Transmission & Storage Serv. for the Period 2015-2017 (U39G); & Related 

Matter (“GT&S”), CPUC Decision No. 16-06-056, 2016 Cal. PUC Lexis 381 at *662. The rule 

includes an exception, however, for when an account is “considered delinquent or past due, and 

therefore, is at risk of service termination pursuant to Gas Rules 8 and 11.” Id. at *707. Under 

such circumstances, PG&E may allocate partial payments to PG&E charges first. Id. “Gas Rule 

11.D provides that bills are considered past due if payment is not received by PG&E within 19 

days after the bill is mailed to the customer.” Id. at *662-63. “Gas Rule 8 requires various steps 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 8 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 50

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

9

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

(e.g. 15 day mailed notice, 48 hour mailed notice and 24 hour in person or telephone notice) 

before a delinquent customer can be considered for disconnection.” Id. at *663. 

During the GT&S Proceeding, CTAC and UET asserted PG&E was applying partial 

payments from delinquent customers to PG&E charges first even when it was not considering 

those customers for disconnection. To address this issue, CTAC asked the CPUC to change Gas 

Rule 23 to require pro rata allocation of partial payments between PG&E and CTA charges 

regardless of whether an account was past due. In other words, CTAC wanted to prohibit PG&E 

from paying itself first under any circumstances. Relatedly, UET asked the CPUC to direct PG&E 

to provide CTAs with a pro rata share of customer payments unless an account was subject to 

service termination pursuant to Rules 8 and 11. The significance of this request was that Rules 8 

and 11 have various notice requirements—as mentioned above—which UET believed PG&E was 

not following in designating accounts as delinquent and potentially subject to termination. 

The CPUC denied CTAC’s request to change Rule 23, finding that maintaining the 

exception to pro rata allocation for delinquent accounts better protected customers from service 

disconnections. GT&S at *579. According to PG&E, the CPUC also “rejected” UET’s position. In 

its reply in support of its motion, PG&E writes: 

During the GT&S case, UET repeatedly urged that PG&E be required to send all notices 

under Gas Rule 11 and for the customer to be subject to service termination before PG&E 

was allowed to allocate payments to past due PG&E charges first. UET argued that the 

past due status of the account was not sufficient. After extensive discovery, evidentiary 

hearing, and briefing, the CPUC rejected UET’s position. . . . 

PG&E’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 10. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). 

The problem with PG&E’s version of events is that it is contradicted by explicit language in the 

body of the CPUC’s final decision. In fact, the CPUC wrote: 

We agree with UET that PG&E should only allocate partial payments to PG&E charges 

first when the account is subject to service termination pursuant to Gas Rules 8 and 11. 

PG&E should not be designating accounts as “delinquent” simply based on a CTA 

customer’s history of late payment or because the CTA carries a balance. 

GT&S at *579-80 (emphasis added).5

5

 PG&E argues its interpretation, which ignores the above language, is properly based on 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 9 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 51

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

10

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

In light of the above language, PG&E’s attempt to present the GT&S Decision as an 

unambiguous finding that PG&E’s allocation practices were and are compliant with Rule 23 

stretches the decision too far. In essence, PG&E’s argument is: 1) the GT&S Proceeding 

considered payment allocation under Rule 23; 2) suggestions were made by UET and others that 

PG&E was not complying with Rule 23; 3) the CPUC’s decision not to change the rule was 

equivalent to finding PG&E was in compliance; and thus 4) UET cannot argue before this Court 

that PG&E was or is not in compliance. 

As the portion of the decision quoted above indicates, the CPUC did not affirmatively find

PG&E was in compliance with Rule 23. Nor did it find that PG&E’s conduct going forward would 

necessarily be in compliance. If anything, the CPUC’s language—clarifying the limited conditions 

under which: a) partial payments could be allocated to PG&E first; and b) accounts could be 

designated as “delinquent”—suggests it found reason to question whether PG&E’s payment 

allocation practices were entirely above board. 

 Moreover, even if PG&E’s interpretation of the GT&S Decision is correct, the decision 

does not conclusively address all aspects of the payment withholding scheme. As UET argues in 

its opposition to PG&E’s motion for summary judgment, the payment withholding scheme is not 

just about whether PG&E improperly paid itself first under circumstances not permitted by its 

tariffs. The scheme also encompasses UET’s allegations that PG&E misrepresented its allocation 

practices to UET—i.e., that the payment files PG&E sent to UET omitted material information 

UET needed to: a) verify PG&E was allocating payments correctly; and b) determine the true 

status of its customers’ accounts. As explained in greater depth below, there are disputed material 

facts with regard to whether PG&E properly withheld this information. Under these 

circumstances, collaterally estopping UET from advancing its payment withholding scheme theory 

 

“Conclusion of Law 296” which states: “PG&E should only allocate partial payments to PG&E 

charges first when the account is considered delinquent or past due, and therefore, is at risk of 

service termination pursuant to gas Rules 8 and 11.” GT&S at *707. This conclusion, PG&E 

argues, is deliberately less stringent than the language in the body of the decision and permits 

PG&E to allocate partial payments to PG&E charges first the moment an account is past due. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 10 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 52

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

11

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

of liability in its entirety is not warranted.6

PG&E’s request to preclude UET’s challenge to its confidentiality policies is similarly 

unavailing. During the GT&S Proceeding, CTAC argued that PG&E unreasonably limited the 

amount of basic customer billing information it shared with CTAs. Specifically, the CTAs 

complained that the payment and billing files PG&E shared with them did not include information 

such as the total balance on an account or the total amount of payment PG&E had received from a 

customer. Without this information, the CTAs were left in the dark as to their customers’ status.

They could not tell, for example, whether customers had made partial payments to PG&E, had 

refused to pay entirely, or were mistakenly being classified as delinquent. 

In response, PG&E contended the information the CTAs wanted was confidential and 

could not be released without written customer authorization. At core, its argument was that CTAs 

were third parties that needed separate authorization to receive their own customers’ payment and 

billing information. 

The CPUC found “PG&E’s arguments unconvincing” and contrary to portions of Public 

Utility Code Section 985. GT&S at *583, *585. Its final decision noted that “a CTA is the agent 

for the core customer (who is the principal) and thus has the right to all information related to the 

purpose of the agency, which would include the complete billing information.” Id. at *585. PG&E 

correctly points out that, despite this finding, the CPUC required that Form 79-845A (which 

establishes the buyer/seller relationship between a CTA and a core customer) be revised to “make

customer consent regarding disclosure of this information more explicit.” Id. at *585. PG&E 

incorrectly suggests, however, that this requirement for revision somehow amounts to a factual 

6 See McDarren v. Marvel Entm't Grp., Inc., 1995 WL 214482, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 1995) 

(“Where an issue is closely intertwined with an issue to be tried, a court has discretion to deny 

summary judgment even if the issue is ‘ripe’ for summary judgment.”); see also Powell v. 

Radkins, 506 F.2d 763, 765 (5th Cir. 1975) (“A court, in its discretion in shaping the case for trial, 

may deny summary judgment as to portions of the case that are ripe therefor, for the purpose of 

achieving a more orderly or expeditious handling of the entire litigation.”); 10B Charles Alan 

Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2737 (4th ed. 2017) (“[I]f the 

court determines that entering a partial summary judgment by identifying the facts that no longer 

may be disputed would not materially expedite the adjudication, it may decline to do so.”)

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 11 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 53

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

12

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

finding that PG&E’s prior refusal to disclose the information was justified by the regulations in 

place. It is not clear the CPUC reached so far. 

As noted above, the CPUC was not convinced PG&E’s interpretation of CPUC regulations 

regarding its ability to release information was legally sound. Nor was it convinced PG&E’s

position made practical sense. The CPUC noted that CTAs have two other billing options in 

addition to consolidated billing through PG&E: 1) the CTA could send its own bills and collect its 

own charges from customers; and 2) the CTA could handle the billing and collection of its own 

charges and of PG&E’s charges associated with gas service. Under either of these options, the

CTA would have access to all of the customer billing information at issue. Therefore, the CPUC 

saw no reason why a CTA should not be permitted to access this information simply because it 

elected to have PG&E handle consolidated billing. 

In this context, the CPUC’s requirement that Form 79-845A be revised to make customer 

consent regarding disclosure more explicit is best understood as a recognition that the GT&S 

Decision would affect the status quo. PG&E had not disclosed this information previously. Now it 

would have to. The CPUC presumably wanted to keep the process transparent and ensure that 

customers whose CTAs utilized PG&E’s consolidated billing option were kept well-informed of 

who had access to their information. The revision requirement does not, as PG&E suggests, 

amount to a finding that PG&E was previously prohibited from disclosing the information at 

issue.7

 Thus, UET is not precluded from arguing here that PG&E’s refusal to disclose the 

information sooner: a) was not required by CPUC regulation; and b) was tortious. 

7

 UET also points to compelling evidence in support of the opposite position. First, it highlights a 

2014 decision by an Administrative Law Judge who found PG&E’s refusal to share customer 

billing information with UET was based on a misplaced reliance on the Gas Rules. The ALJ ruled, 

“So long as UET is seeking only information regarding its own customer account, and no 

provision of law prohibits PG&E from complying with those information requests, PG&E is 

obligated to turn over to UET the customer account information in its possession.” ALJ Ruling 

Granting Mot. for Inj. Relief, Case 14001-006 (November 17, 2014), at 4. Second, UET asserts

that until 2009, PG&E provided more information to CTAs than it does now and that its change in 

policy correlated more closely with a change in PG&E personnel than with a change in CPUC 

regulations. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 12 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 54

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

13

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

 ii. CPUC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction

Public Utilities Code section 1759 limits jurisdiction to review a CPUC order to the 

California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.8

 Section 2106 of the Public Utilities 

Code, however, grants courts jurisdiction to hear actions for damages against a public utility for 

violations of California law.9 To resolve conflicts between these two sections, courts apply the 

three-part test laid out by the California Supreme Court in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. 

Superior Court, 13 Cal. 4th 893 (1996) (“Covalt”). See Kairy v. SuperShuttle Intern., 660 F.3d 

1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this test, courts ask whether: (1) the CPUC has the authority to 

adopt a regulatory policy on the subject matter of the litigation; (2) the CPUC has exercised that 

authority; and (3) adjudication of the case before the court would hinder or interfere with the 

CPUC’s exercise of regulatory authority. See Covalt, 13 Cal. 4th at 923, 926, 935. 

PG&E unsuccessfully raised the issue of the CPUC’s exclusive jurisdiction in one of its 

motions to dismiss. As set forth in the prior order addressing that motion, the first two factors of 

the Covalt test were met but not the third. 

The CPUC has authority to make and approve rules regarding both CTAs and 

Consolidated Billing—two subjects upon which it has exercised its authority via the Gas 

Rules—but UET does not ask this Court to construe those rules, so the instant action does 

not threaten to interfere with the CPUC’s exercise of its authority.

United Energy Trading, LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 146 F. Supp. 3d 1122, 1137 (N.D. Cal. 

2015). More specifically, the alleged schemes engaged in by PG&E (including the payment 

8 “No court of this state, except the Supreme Court and the court of appeal . . . shall have 

jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct, or annul any order or decision of the commission or to 

suspend or delay the execution or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the 

commission in the performance of its official duties . . . .” Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 1759(a).

9 “Any public utility which does, causes to be done, or permits any act, matter, or thing prohibited 

or declared unlawful, or which omits to do any act, matter, or thing required to be done, either by 

the Constitution, any law of this State, or any order or decision of the commission, shall be liable 

to the persons or corporations affected thereby for all loss, damages, or injury caused thereby or 

resulting therefrom. If the court finds that the act or omission was wilful, it may, in addition to the 

actual damages, award exemplary damages. An action to recover for such loss, damage, or injury 

may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by any corporation or person.” Cal. Pub. 

Util. Code § 2106. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 13 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 55

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

14

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

withholding scheme) represented intentionally tortious conduct exceeding anything contemplated 

by the Gas Rules. 

 The reasoning in that earlier order remains applicable here and is unchanged by the 

intervening issuance of the CPUC’s GT&S Decision. In fact, the reasons why the GT&S Decision 

does not justify the application of res judicata or collateral estoppel mirror why adjudication of 

UET’s claims here will not interfere with the CPUC’s exercise of regulatory authority. 

 As explained above, the GT&S Decision addressed CPUC regulations related to payment 

allocation and customer information disclosure. It clarified and made more explicit what these 

rules meant and how they should apply going forward. The GT&S Decision did not, however, 

ratify PG&E’s past behavior as being in compliance with CPUC regulation. Nor did it find 

PG&E’s conduct going forward would necessarily be in compliance. The CPUC likely did not 

issue these findings because it would have been unable to award UET and the other CTAs 

adequate relief (i.e., damages) for the harm caused by PG&E’s noncompliance. 

 That the CPUC has not and cannot fully address harms flowing from PG&E’s alleged 

noncompliance with its tariffs reflects why a district court can do so without interfering with the 

CPUC’s jurisdiction. A different construction of the relevant tariffs from that employed by the 

CPUC is not a predicate for finding PG&E liable. Nor must the CPUC’s GT&S decision or its 

decisions in other proceedings be overturned to do so. In fact, rather than interfering with the 

CPUC’s jurisdiction, adjudication of UET’s claims here serves the purpose of Section 2106 of the 

Public Utilities Code, of providing individuals or entities harmed by the unlawful actions of a 

public utility with a means of recovering for the “loss, damages, or injury caused thereby or 

resulting therefrom.” Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 2106. 

 In summary, the CPUC has not conclusively adjudicated whether PG&E’s past and present 

practices with regard to payment allocation and confidentiality comply with its tariffs. 

Adjudicating these issues will not interfere with the CPUC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

PG&E’s motion for summary judgment precluding UET from litigating these issues is denied. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 14 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 56

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

15

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

B. UET’s Motion for Summary Judgment

1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

 UET seeks summary judgment as to PG&E’s liability for breach of fiduciary duty. To 

prevail at trial on this claim, UET must prove: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) its 

breach; and (3) damage caused by the breach. Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, 123 

Cal. App. 4th 1179, 1183 (2004). In short, UET’s argument proceeds as follows. First, as UET’s

billing and collections agent, PG&E has a fiduciary duty to provide UET with material 

information related to UET’s customers’ accounts. Second, PG&E has breached its duty by failing 

to provide that information. Third, PG&E’s breach has frustrated UET’s ability to serve its 

customers effectively and forced UET to alter its business plan and marketing approach within 

PG&E’s service area.

10

 The evidence identified by UET appears to satisfy element one of the claim. UET points to 

the GT&S Decision, as well as testimony by PG&E’s own witnesses, to support the proposition 

that PG&E is UET’s billing and collections agent. See GT&S Decision at *586 (“PG&E is an 

agent of the CTA when it is doing the combined billing on behalf of the CTA.”). UET also 

highlights a number of cases suggesting the agency relationship between it and PG&E is of a type 

that California courts would generally view as giving rise to fiduciary duties. See, e.g., Michelson 

v. Hamada, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 343, 346 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (concluding sufficient evidence 

supported a finding that a fiduciary relationship existed with respect to billing and collection 

services provided by one doctor for another). While UET may therefore be able to demonstrate the 

existence of a fiduciary relationship with PG&E to the limited extent of billing activities, its bid 

for summary judgment runs aground on the shoals of breach. 

 Granted, two of the three arguments advanced by PG&E against finding breach—regarding 

the preclusive effect of the GT&S Decision and the exclusive jurisdiction of the CPUC over what 

10 UET acknowledges the record is not yet sufficiently developed to determine UET’s damages as 

a matter of law. It asks only for a finding of liability, with damages to be determined subject to 

evidence and expert-witness testimony at trial. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 15 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 57

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

16

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

customer information PG&E is allowed to disclose—were already found earlier to be 

unpersuasive. The third argument, however, standard in the summary judgment context, is more 

compelling. In short, PG&E asserts that whether or not it has complied with any fiduciary 

obligations it has as UET’s billing agent is a triable issue of fact. 

In support of this position, PG&E points to the testimony of its expert Daniel W. Ray, 

CPA/CFF, CFE. Ray examined the billing and accounting information for the eight customers that 

UET’s Second Amended Complaint apparently invokes as exemplars of PG&E’s alleged improper 

billing and collection practices. He found no evidence of any improper activities nor did he 

conclude any of the files were inaccurate. PG&E asserts that UET’s expert, Gregory Thaler, did 

not refute these findings. UET naturally characterizes Thaler’s findings differently. The fact 

remains, however, that the issue is disputed. 

It also remains in dispute whether or not PG&E’s refusal to provide the information at 

issue was based on a proper understanding of CPUC regulations regarding the disclosure of 

customer information. As noted previously, the GT&S Decision did not conclusively determine 

PG&E’s conduct was in compliance with CPUC regulations. Neither, however, did it find PG&E 

was noncompliant. PG&E cites various CPUC decisions it says prohibited it from disclosing the 

account information at issue without explicit customer authorization. UET may eventually 

convince a jury PG&E’s reliance on these decisions was misplaced and that its conduct was 

tortious. It has not debunked PG&E’s position so conclusively that it is entitled to summary 

judgment.11

2. Intentional Interference with Contract 

UET also seeks summary judgment as to PG&E’s liability for intentional interference with 

contract. To prevail on this claim at trial, UET must prove: “(1) a valid contract between plaintiff 

and a third party; (2) defendants’ knowledge of the contract; (3) defendants’ intentional acts 

11 Because UET fails to show undisputed facts establishing breach, the third element of the claim 

(damages) need not be addressed. PG&E’s objection to UET’s reply evidence is overruled as 

moot.

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 16 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 58

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

17

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or 

disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” Guidiville Band of Pomo 

Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767, 774 (9th Cir. 2008). 

UET satisfies the first two elements of the claim. As a registered CTA, UET enters into 

service contracts with customers to supply natural gas. PG&E is obviously aware of these 

contracts as it is responsible for billing and collecting payment from UET’s customers. UET’s 

proof of the remaining elements draws on its “energy credit scheme” theory of liability.

Specifically, UET asserts PG&E applies energy credits to customers’ accounts that often offset 

both PG&E and UET’s charges, resulting in bills sent to customers indicating no payment is due. 

Despite affirmatively directing customers not to pay, PG&E represents to UET that customers 

have been billed for UET’s charges. The result is that UET is led to believe its customers simply 

have not paid, thus interfering with UET’s contractual relationships with its customers. 

UET’s theory is coherent but the evidence on which it relies is not sufficient to justify 

summary judgment. In particular, UET has failed to establish that there are no triable issues of fact 

with regard to: 1) whether the bills sent by PG&E are false or misleading; and 2) whether PG&E’s

alleged interference with UET’s contracts was and is intentional. 

With regard to the first issue, PG&E contends the information provided to UET’s 

customers on their bills is accurate. While PG&E’s billing system rolls up all charges into a single 

account balance on the first page of the bill, the first page also itemizes the charges for each 

service agreement (including those owed UET) and provides further details for each charge on 

subsequent pages. UET may ultimately convince a jury that the cumulative effect of how the 

charges are presented is misleading (at least in situations where credits have been applied) but it 

has not done so through undisputed material facts sufficient to support summary judgment. 

With regard to the second issue, PG&E correctly points out that UET’s evidence of intent 

is not airtight. One of UET’s primary arguments in support of intent is that PG&E has known 

about the problem with the application of energy credits since 2007 but has done nothing to 

address it. The evidence on this point, however, is ambiguous. When the issue was originally 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 17 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 59

of 120
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

18

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

discovered in 2007 by former PG&E employee Ken Bohn, a manual workaround was put in place 

to ensure that any payments misappropriated to PG&E as a result of the application of energy 

credits were transferred to the CTA. Additional evidence indicates that in subsequent years PG&E 

also at least attempted to develop an automated mechanism for addressing the issue. UET argues 

the persistence of the problem indicates PG&E’s corrective efforts, whether manual or automatic, 

are at best ineffective and at worst insincere. Whether this is sufficient to satisfy the intent element 

of the claim must be left to the trier of fact to decide. Given UET’s failure to prove the absence of 

disputed material facts, summary judgment as to PG&E’s liability for intentional interference with 

contract is inappropriate. 

V. CONCLUSION 

PG&E’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted as to UET’s RICO and 

respondeat superior claims but denied as to UET’s “payment withholding scheme” theory of 

liability and UET’s challenge to PG&E’s customer privacy and confidentiality policies. UET’s 

motion for partial summary judgment is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2018 

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States District Judge 

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 222 Filed 01/22/18 Page 18 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 60

of 120
Exhibit 3 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 61

of 120
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.,

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-02383-RS 

ORDER DENYING UNITED ENERGY 

TRADING, LLC'S MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE & PACIFIC GAS AND 

ELECTRIC COMPANY'S MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE

I. INTRODUCTION

United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) 

bring motions to exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. 

Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993).1

 UET moves to exclude the testimony of 

PG&E’s experts Daniel Ray and Michael Quinn, Ph. D. PG&E moves to exclude the testimony of 

UET’s expert Jesse David, Ph. D. For the reasons explained below, both UET’s and PG&E’s 

motions are denied. 

1

 The facts of this case are set forth in this Court’s prior order regarding motions for partial 

summary judgment and need not be repeated here. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 62

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

2

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To testify at trial as an expert, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that the 

witness be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. 

Even if a witness is qualified as an expert in a particular field, any scientific, technical, or 

specialized testimony is admissible only if it (a) “will help the trier of fact to understand the 

evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” (b) “is based upon sufficient facts or data,” (c) “is the 

product of reliable principles and methods,” and (d) “ the expert has reliably applied the principles 

and methods to the facts of the case.” Id. 

Rule 702 does not permit irrelevant or unreliable testimony. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. 

Expert opinions are relevant if the knowledge underlying them has a “valid connection to the 

pertinent inquiry.” United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza, 472 F.3d 645, 654 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Expert testimony which does not relate to any 

issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 (citing 3 

Weinstein & Berger ¶ 702[02], p. 702-18) (internal quotation marks omitted). Expert opinion 

testimony is reliable if such knowledge has a “basis in the knowledge and experience of [the 

relevant] discipline.” Id. at 592. Courts should consider the following factors when evaluating 

whether an expert’s proposed testimony is reliable: (1) “whether a theory or technique can be (and 

has been) tested,” (2) “whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and 

publication,” (3) the known or potential error rate of the particular scientific theory or technique, 

and (4) the degree to which the scientific technique or theory is accepted in a relevant scientific 

community. Id. at 593-94. This list is not exhaustive, however, and the standard is flexible. 

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151 (1999). The Daubert inquiry “applies not only 

to testimony based on ‘scientific’ knowledge but also to testimony based on ‘technical’ and other 

‘specialized’ knowledge.” Id. at 141. 

The task is not to “decid[e] whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony 

has substance such that it would be helpful to a jury.” Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget 

Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2013). Courts may not exclude testimony because it is 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 63

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

3

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

impeachable. Id. at 969. “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and 

careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking 

shaky and admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. The focus of the inquiry is thus on 

the principles and methodology employed, not the conclusions reached by the expert. See id. at 

595. Ultimately, the purpose of the assessment is to exclude speculative or unreliable testimony to 

ensure accurate, unbiased decision-making by the trier of fact. “Nothing in either Daubert or the 

Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to 

existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” Kumho, 526 U.S. at 157 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Further, although an expert may not adopt another’s data without verifying the 

validity and reliability of that data, Rule 703 allows an expert to depend on facts or data relied 

upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject; an 

expert is not required to testify only upon data the expert has personally gathered or tested. See

Fed. R. Evid. 703. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. UET’s Motions

1. Motion to Exclude Daniel Ray 

PG&E’s expert Daniel Ray is a Certified Public Accountant, a Certified Fraud Examiner, 

Certified in Financial Forensics, and a former Federal Bureau of Investigations agent. Ray has 35 

years of experience analyzing accounting records and dealing with fraud-related issues. Ray 

offers opinions regarding PG&E’s billing practices. Specifically, his testimony details how 

PG&E’s billing practices function and opines that there is no indicia of fraud or an intent to 

defraud UET by PG&E under any of UET’s theories. UET advances several arguments for 

excluding Ray’s expert testimony, labelling his opinions as unreliable, proffering impermissible 

legal conclusions, and lacking any appreciable methodology, such that Ray’s opinions will not 

assist the jury. UET’s arguments ultimately are appropriate for cross-examination but not 

exclusion under Daubert.

UET’s main criticisms of Ray’s reliability focus on his parroting of PG&E’s position 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 64

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

without independently verifying the information PG&E provided to him, or analyzing additional 

documents such as customer blue bills. UET further contends that Ray fails to articulate why his 

review of 35 customer accounts, many of which were highlighted in UET’s complaint and 

identified by UET’s expert Gregory Thaler as exemplars of the fraud schemes, reliably allowed 

him to extrapolate opinions about all of UET’s approximately 120,000 accounts. UET presents

reasons to question or discredit Ray’s opinions. It has not, however, shown that his opinions are 

methodologically flawed as opposed to fodder for cross examination. 

First, while UET is correct that an expert may not rely merely on the self-serving 

projections of his client, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Ray rested his valuation on 

PG&E’s mere “say-so.” Clear-View Techs., Inc. v. Rasnick, No. 13-cv-02744-BLF, 2015 WL 

3505003, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2015). Ray engaged in his own independent analysis of the 

customer data PG&E provided to him, consistent with his obligations as an expert under Rule 702 

and Daubert. The validity of the underlying data on which Ray relies may be open to attack, but 

his approach to analyzing that data is not outside the realm of proper expert testimony. The same 

goes for Ray’s lack of reliance on other sources, such as customer blue bills, as the focal point of 

his analysis or his decision to limit review to 35 accounts. 

While UET may disagree with Ray’s decision to limit the scope of his expert analysis, his 

methods are not so inherently suspect as to warrant excluding his testimony altogether. None of 

the cases UET invokes stand for the proposition that expert testimony is admissible only where it 

relies on expansive sampling, as UET seems to suggest. See Alaska Rent-A-Car, 738 F.3d at 969-

70 (concluding that expert’s extrapolation from 5% of the statewide rental car market went to 

impeachment, not admissibility). UET’s reliance on Abu-Lughod v. Calis is readily 

distinguishable. In that case, an expert failed to provide any sound explanation for non-random 

sampling of the data and her chosen sample sizes such that the court could not be confident the 

expert applied the sampling methodology appropriately. Abu-Lughod v. Calis, No. CV 13-2792 

DMG (GJSx), 2015 WL 12731921, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2015). By contrast, in Alaska Rent-ACar, the court concluded the expert provided adequate reasoning for limiting his analysis to one 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 4 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 65

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

5

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

city as a means of extrapolating statewide figures. Alaska Rent-A-Car, 738 F.3d at 968. 

Here, Ray provides reasons for limiting his analysis to the 35 accounts, the bulk of which 

were highlighted in UET’s complaint and the report of UET’s expert, Thaler. (See UET Ex. O to 

Capritta Decl. at 187:9–188:11 (Dkt. 250-16) (“Ray Deposition”) (explaining that 15 of the 

accounts he analyzed were identified in UET’s complaint and Thaler’s report as exemplars of the 

Credit Energy Scheme and why he analyzed them).) That Ray did not review all approximately 

120,000 accounts, or used some other means to analyze a representative sample of the total 

population, goes to the weight of his opinions, not their admissibility. “Challenges that go to the 

weight of the evidence are within the province of a fact finder, not a trial court judge.” City of 

Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1044 (9th Cir. 2014). 

UET further argues that Ray’s opinions in both his report and deposition are “riddled” with 

legal opinions and conclusions such that they are wholly inadmissible as a matter of law. 

Specifically, UET contends that Ray in essence will tell the jury that PG&E complied with the 

applicable laws and regulations, and that such testimony constitutes a legal issue on which an 

expert may not give an opinion. (See, e.g. UET Ex. P to Capritta Decl. at 13 (Dkt. 250-17) (“Ray 

Report”) (“[O]n those occasions when PG&E did not remit any payment, or did not remit a full 

payment, to UET, PG&E was following the payment allocation procedure mandated by state law 

and the CPUC as set forth in PG&E’s CPUC-approved Gas Rules.”); Ray Deposition at 80:3–12

(“[Question] [Y]ou’ve . . . offered the opinion . . . that what PG&E is doing is appropriate under 

the gas rules, correct? [Answer] Correct, with respect to the . . . application of . . . partial 

payments to first satisfy its outstanding debt in connection with past-due debt . . . consistent with 

the tariffs and the gas rules.”).) Moreover, UET insists Ray’s opinion contradicts this Court’s 

prior summary judgment order regarding testimony relative to compliance or non-compliance with 

the Gas Rules, tariffs, or CPUC decisions. 

While the Ninth Circuit has held that an expert may not offer a legal conclusion, United

States v. Diaz, 876 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 2017), the court has also held that “if the terms used 

by an expert witness do not have a specialized meaning in law” and “do not represent an attempt 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 5 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 66

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

to instruct the jury on the law,” or “how to apply the law to the facts of the case, the testimony is 

not an impermissible legal conclusion.” Id. at 1199. In Diaz, expert testimony was deemed 

admissible because it operated to assist the jury, was based on a review of the relevant facts, used 

legal terms in their ordinary, everyday sense, and did not substitute the expert’s opinion for that of 

the jury. Id. Applying the court’s reasoning to these facts, expert testimony may assist the jury 

with regard to understanding PG&E’s billing practices. Accounting principles are not a matter of 

common knowledge for the majority of the public, and so Ray’s testimony potentially could 

enlighten the jury on how to analyze accounts for fraud. Ray’s opinions are grounded on a review 

of PG&E’s billing practices, customer accounts, the tariffs, and the CPUC decision. Ray did not 

use any specialized legal terms to describe PG&E’s compliance with proper billing practices. Cf.

Pokorny v. Quixtar, Inc., No. 07-00201 SC, 2007 WL 1932922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2007) 

(barring admission of an expert opinion for expressing a legal opinion on a distinct legal term: 

“unconscionable”). Ray did not substitute his judgment for the jury’s, but instead provides his

professional opinion about whether PG&E’s conduct acted in conformance with its understanding 

of the Gas Rules. This does not suggest, of course, that Ray or any other expert will be free to 

opine that PG&E did not violate federal law, for that remains a question for the jury to determine. 

Turning to this Court’s prior summary judgment order, UET carries it too far. That order 

does not state that PG&E’s belief in its compliance with Gas Rule 23 was definitively wrong. 

Rather, the order simply precludes PG&E from asserting that the California Public Utilities 

Commission (“CPUC”) unambiguously decided that PG&E’s allocation practices were and are 

compliant with Gas Rule 23. PG&E remains free to argue that its interpretation of Gas Rule 23 

remains correct.2

 Accordingly, the motion to exclude Ray’s testimony is denied.

2 UET’s contention that Ray is incompetent to opine on PG&E’s compliance with applicable laws 

and regulations because he is not an expert on the interpretation of Gas Rules, tariffs, and CPUC 

decisions is off the mark. Ray is qualified to opine on indicia of accounting fraud, and his report 

and deposition focuses on that subject. Moreover, UET has not shown how accounting in the 

natural gas industry is sufficiently different from other industries such that Ray’s accounting 

expertise would be inapplicable to that industry. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 6 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 67

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

7

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

2. Motion to Exclude Michael Quinn 

UET also moves to exclude Michael Quinn’s testimony, arguing that his opinions are 

unreliable, fail to apply principles and methodology to the facts of this case, and will not assist the 

jury. Quinn is an expert in economics with over 20 years of experience in the natural gas industry. 

His initial report focused generally on the background of the natural gas market and the regulatory 

structure governing PG&E and Core Transport Agents (“CTAs”). Quinn’s rebuttal report 

addressed the opinions of Jesse David, UET’s proffered expert on lost profits. UET attacks 

Quinn’s opinions in both respects as inadmissible for different reasons. These points, however, 

are better made in cross-examination. 

First, UET argues that Quinn’s initial report should be excluded as providing irrelevant 

history, the facts of which are not contested in this case and would not be helpful to the jury. 

Quinn’s opinions, however, could provide valuable background for the jury that is likely 

unaccustomed to the natural gas market in California and thereby assist it in understanding the 

complex regulatory background governing the role of PG&E and the CTAs. Cf. Stambolian v. 

Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 12 Civ. 4378, 2013 WL 6345566, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013) 

(admitting expert testimony concerning the “complex regulatory framework governing . . . 

pharmaceutical medical products” because it “will be helpful to members of the jury who are 

likely not familiar with the intricacies of FDA pharmaceutical drug approval and regulation 

process”). Although Quinn does not present himself as a regulatory expert per se, he is an expert 

in the economics of the natural gas industry. See id. (“Qualification is viewed liberally and may 

be based on a broad range of skills, knowledge, training, and experience.”).

Second, UET asserts that Quinn’s rebuttal report testimony, in which he calculated UET’s 

mitigation profits and attacked the conclusion of UET’s expert, should be excluded. UET reasons 

that Quinn relied on insufficient sources and improperly asserted economic platitudes that failed to 

analyze the reality of UET and PG&E’s circumstances. None of UET’s reasoning is persuasive. 

UET criticizes Quinn for basing his opinions regarding mitigation (whereby UET sold “green gas” 

to customers who paid a premium to purchase carbon offsets paired with their gas to offset their 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 7 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 68

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

8

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to purchasing renewable energy certificates (Ex. S to 

Capritta Decl. at 5 (Dkt. 250-20) (“Quinn Rebuttal Report”))) on the unsupported assumption that 

UET would not have marketed “green gas” if not for PG&E’s fraud. Quinn relied upon the 

declaration of Michael Huggins, UET’s managing director, for the fact that in 2015, UET began 

exploring “green gas” marketing efforts as a result of PG&E’s allegedly improper practices. 

(Quinn Rebuttal Report at 5 (citing Huggins Decl. at 4); see also Ex. 6 to Sias Decl. ¶¶ 18–19

(Dkt. 234-8) (“Huggins Declaration”) (“[W]e explored selling carbon offsets and renewable 

energy credits bundled with our gas service. PG&E’s fraudulent billing practices caused UET to 

change its marketing practices.”).) Given that one of UET’s executives affirmatively stated UET

engaged in “green gas” marketing due to PG&E’s alleged fraudulent behavior, Quinn’s 

assumption was not so outside the realm of reasonable expert opinion as to warrant excluding his 

testimony. UET fails to demonstrate why it is unreasonable for an expert to rely on statements 

made in a sworn, signed declaration absent evidence rebutting the underlying statements. AbuLughod, 2015 WL 12731921, at *4. UET’s frustration with Quinn’s inference that “green gas” 

customers would have purchased regular brown gas instead of another premium product in the 

absence of PG&E’s alleged conduct can be used to attack the weight of his opinions, but not their 

admissibility. 

UET also attacks Quinn’s use of Huggins’s “Green Gas and Customer Rec Spreadsheet” 

(Ex. T to Capritta Decl. (Dkt. 250-21)) as dependent on unreliable internal calculations that Quinn 

should have compared against UET’s actual financial information. UET, however, does not 

provide evidence to suggest the numbers contained on the spreadsheet are incorrect. Moreover, 

Huggins admitted at his deposition that the number of customers in the spreadsheet “is based on 

weekly reports that I would get . . . saying they signed up X amount of green customers, and then I 

would just put them in here.” (UET Ex. A to Capritta Decl. at 322:22–25 (Dkt. 250-2) (“Huggins 

Deposition”).)3

3 UET also criticizes Quinn’s purported reliance on Huggins’s 2013 “Blue Spruce Projected 

Revenue” spreadsheet (Ex. U to Capritta Decl.), however this document is not cited in his report.

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 8 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 69

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

9

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UET condemns Quinn’s opinion, reflected in both his rebuttal report and deposition, 

attacking its expert’s conclusion UET decided to curtail marketing in 2014 for economically 

rational reasons, without offering his own opinion on what was economically rational for UET to 

do at that time. UET can certainly bring to the jury’s attention the fact that Quinn limited his 

opinion to a criticism of UET expert David’s conclusions but offered none of his own. At this 

stage, however, Quinn’s opinion, however limited, is not so inherently suspect as to bar its 

consideration by the jury. UET does not suggest why an expert must do more than contradict 

another expert opinion’s evidentiary basis in order to survive Daubert.

Finally, UET dismisses Quinn’s rebuttal report and deposition as containing mostly 

generalities regarding market principles and conclusions, without applying them to the specific 

facts of this case. The deposition transcript, however, reveals that much of what UET laments as 

generalities were actually repeated attempts by UET to get Quinn to give an opinion on whether 

UET’s marketing decision was rational or irrational. (See, e.g., Ex. R to Capritta Decl. at 167:4–

171:19 (Dkt. 250-19) (“Quinn Deposition”) (extended dialogue between UET’s counsel and 

Quinn).) In any case, UET does not explain how such “generalities” by Quinn taint the overall 

admissibility of his opinions. The one case UET invokes in support is inapposite: in that case, an 

expert opinion was excluded because the expert pointed to no authority in support of his 

foundational assumptions, nor identified any support derived from the reports he did consult. 

Newkirk v. ConAgra Goods, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1006, 1017 (E.D. Wash. 2010). Furthermore, 

Quinn does state how his general market principles apply to this case. (Quinn Deposition at 

190:14–17 (“Nothing I’ve looked at for this case would cause me to conclude . . . that [the] 

generally accepted theory and empirical observation in a number of industries [that it becomes 

more difficult to acquire customers the more of them you already have] doesn’t hold here.”).) 

Accordingly, the motion to exclude Quinn’s testimony is denied.

B. PG&E’s Motion

1. Motion to Exclude Jesse David 

UET’s economics expert Jesse David has over 20 years of experience performing 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 9 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 70

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

10

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

economic analysis. David offers opinions regarding how much lost profits UET incurred due to 

PG&E’s averred fraudulent conduct and on UET’s 2014 decision to scale back its marketing. He 

uses a “but-for” model to calculate UET’s alleged lost profits incurred as a result of PG&E’s 

purported improper conduct. (See UET Ex. E to Capritta Decl. at 96:2–25 (Dkt. 247) (“David 

Deposition”); Ex. 4 to Sias Decl. ¶¶ 8, 13–14 (Dkt. 234-6) (“David Report”).) According to 

David, “but-for” PG&E’s conduct and UET’s shift in marketing strategy, UET would have 

reached its target number of customers and UET is entitled to the lost profits associated with those 

“lost” customers. David subsequently provided an alternative calculation alongside his original 

one, whereby he stopped calculating damages in June 2015 instead of continuing through to the 

end of the year. Additionally, David opines that it was “economically rational” for UET to scale 

back its marketing around the beginning of 2014 in response to PG&E’s alleged behavior. (David 

Report ¶ 13.) PG&E challenges David’s testimony on numerous grounds, claiming that his 

methodology in calculating UET’s lost profits is inherently flawed and provides no analysis to 

support his opinion that UET’s decision was “economically rational.” PG&E’s arguments likely 

comprise appropriate impeachment material with which to attack David’s opinions, but do not 

amount to grounds for excluding them. 

PG&E contends that David’s failure to subtract UET’s additional profits when it shifted to 

selling “green gas” offsets and RECs in response to PG&E’s alleged conduct from his calculation 

of alleged lost profits is fatal to his opinion’s admissibility. In PG&E’s view, UET”s “green gas” 

mitigation strategy would not have occurred “but-for” PG&E’s alleged conduct in the same way 

that UET lost profits in the same time frame, and so any damages calculation must account for 

both mitigation and lost profits. PG&E, however, provides no analysis demonstrating that David 

applied flawed methodology in his calculation of UET’s lost profits. PG&E simply claims that 

David is incorrect with regard to ultimate damages: lost profits minus mitigation. There is nothing 

showing that David was wrong in his approach in determining UET’s losses in the first instance. 

Contrary to PG&E’s interpretation, Brandon & Tibbs v. George Kevorkian Accountancy Corp.,

226 Cal. App. 3d 442 (1990) does not dictate otherwise. That case was not about expert 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 10 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 71

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

11

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

admissibility, but instead concerned the trial court’s failure to account for plaintiff’s mitigation of 

its losses when awarding damages. See id. at 461, 463. What, if anything, UET is ultimately 

entitled to recover is for the trier of fact to decide. PG&E may make its case to the jury for why it 

is not ultimately responsible for any of UET’s lost profits in light of its “green gas” mitigation 

efforts—if it is established at trial that they indeed are a form of mitigation—but it has not shown 

that David’s methodology is too flawed to prevent the jury from considering his testimony. 

The same goes for David’s alternative calculation. PG&E sees that analysis, whereby he 

stops his lost profits analysis in June 2015 when UET began to turn a profit from “green gas,” as 

an arbitrary way to avoid having to account for the profits UET made in shifting its marketing 

strategy. While it certainly is coincidental that David would proffer a calculation that 

conveniently terminates damages at the moment UET’s “green gas” became profitable, this goes 

to impeachment of David’s testimony, not exclusion. The alternative calculation used the same 

methods and data as the original calculation, which as just discussed is admissible. (David 

Deposition at 157:12–18.)

Finally, PG&E asserts David provided no analysis to support his opinion that UET’s 

decision in 2014 to curtail marketing in response to PG&E’s alleged impropriety was an 

“economically rational” decision. PG&E invokes the fact that UET was still profitable when it cut 

back on marketing, and that UET’s actual revenue as a share of billed revenue increased between 

2012 and 2013, as calculated by David. These arguments, however, represent fodder for crossexamination, not the basis for exclusion under Daubert. Similar to its adversary’s arguments 

above, PG&E attacks David’s opinion for not undertaking an independent analysis, but instead 

relying upon data provided by UET and the testimony of its officials. These arguments are 

unpersuasive. Additionally, PG&E’s proffered cases are readily distinguishable. Conde v. 

Velsicol Chem. Corp. dealt with several experts’ opinions that were contradicted by nineteen 

formal peer-reviewed studies. 24 F.3d 809, 813-14 (6th Cir. 1994). There is no such direct 

contradiction of David’s testimony. Likewise, in Three Crown Ltd. P’ship v. Salomon Bros., Inc.,

an expert opinion’s assumptions had no basis in the record. 906 F. Supp. 876, 894 (S.D.N.Y. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 11 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 72

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

12

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

1995). Here, David has grounded his opinion in the record. Accordingly, the motion to exclude 

David’s testimony is denied.

C. Sealing Motions

In connection with their motions to exclude, UET and PG&E have submitted five sealing 

motions either to redact or seal entirely exhibits relied upon in their motions to exclude (or, in 

some cases, portions of the briefs). (See Dkt. 233, Dkt. 246, Dkt. 249, Dkt. 251, Dkt. 255.) In 

many instances, the parties fail to comply with the local rules regarding sealing motions, such as 

failing to file a responsive declaration establishing documents they designated qualify as sealable, 

per Local Rule 79-5(e). For example, UET never filed a responsive declaration for PG&E’s

sealing motion (Dkt. 233) filed in conjunction with PG&E’s motion to exclude. In several other 

instances, the parties fail to offer a basis for sealing other than the fact that the document was 

marked confidential pursuant to a protective order. (See, e.g., Capritta Decl., Dkt. 251.) Local 

Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) explicitly states, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a 

party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, 

or portions thereof, are sealable.” Other times, there appears to be confusion between the parties 

as to what document is proposed to be sealed. (Compare Capritta Decl., Dkt. 251, with Sias Decl., 

Dkt. 253 regarding Exhibit E.) The parties also fail, at times, to highlight portions of documents 

to indicate which portions of the unredacted version of the document should be omitted from the 

redacted version per Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A)(D), (d)(2). (See, e.g., Dkt. 251, Ex. E, Ex. P.) 

Some of the documents, however, appear appropriate for redactions or sealing. For 

example, the parties are correct to note that confidential and personally identifiable information 

regarding PG&E’s customers should be kept from public view. (See, e.g., Dkt. 233, Ex. 14.) In 

other instances, there has been an adequate showing that material qualifies as trade secrets eligible 

for sealing. (See Dkt. 251, Ex. L.) 

Accordingly, no later than October 25, 2018, the parties shall engage in meet and confer 

negotiations to attempt to agree on the narrowest possible sealing order, and shall jointly submit 

such a proposed order no later than November 1, 2018. The proposed order shall clearly identify 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 12 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 73

of 120
CASE NO. 15-cv-02383-RS

13

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

any documents, or portions thereof, that the parties agree should be filed under seal (either entirely 

or with redactions), and concisely state the basis for such sealing. The parties shall clearly 

indicate where their respective declarations, either already submitted or new declarations, provide 

sufficient grounds to seal each document requested to be sealed. To the extent the parties are 

unable to reach agreement as to the propriety of sealing any particular material, the proposed order 

should include brackets or other indications sufficient to allow the Court to decide the dispute and 

enter the proposed order by accepting or rejecting the bracketed language. The proposed order 

should be one document, which in one fashion or another, will dispose of all five sealing motions 

identified above. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, UET’s motions to exclude and PG&E’s motion to exclude 

are each denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2018 

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States District Judge 

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 258 Filed 10/16/18 Page 13 of 13

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 74

of 120
Exhibit 4 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 75

of 120
FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT No. 15 Civ. 02383 (RS) (SK)

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

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

One Market Street, Steuart Tower, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105

Laurie Edelstein (Bar No. 164466) 

Seth R. Sias (Bar No. 260674) 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

One Market Street 

Steuart Tower, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 365-6700 

Facsimile: (415) 365-6699 

ledelstein@steptoe.com

ssias@steptoe.com

Michael Dockterman (admitted pro hac vice)

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: (312) 577-1300 

Facsimile: (312) 577-1370 

mdockterman@steptoe.com 

Attorneys for Defendant

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Thomas D. Leland (Pro Hac) 

Leah E. Capritta (Pro Hac) 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

1801 California Street, Suite 5000 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Telephone: (303) 974-6660 

Facsimile: (303) 974-6659 

thomas.leland@hklaw.com 

leah.capritta@khlaw.com 

Charles L. Coleman III (Bar No. 65496) 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 743-6900 

Facsimile: (415) 743-6910 

charles.coleman@hklaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

United Energy Trading, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a 

California corporation,; ALBERT TORRES, an 

individual; BILL CHEN, an individual; TANISHA 

ROBINSON, an individual,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 15 Civ. 02383 (RS) (SK) 

FURTHER JOINT CASE 

MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg 

Magistrate: Hon. Sallie Kim 

Date: October 25, 2018 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 3 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 259 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 76

of 120
FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT No. 15 Civ. 02383 (RS) (SK)

1

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

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

One Market Street, Steuart Tower, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105

FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Pursuant to the Court’s April 13, 2018 Order (Dkt. No. 243) and the Standing Order for 

All Judges of the Northern District of California, Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”) 

and Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) hereby submit this Further Joint 

Case Management Statement in advance of the Case Management Conference scheduled for 

October 25, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. In the interests of brevity and efficiency, the parties do not 

repeat in full portions of prior Joint Statements that do not require the Court’s attention. 

1. Jurisdiction and Service 

The parties agree the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. 

2. Facts

The parties’ Further Joint Case Management Statements filed August 4, 2016 (Dkt. No. 

110) and May 4, 2017 (Dkt. No. 157) set forth the factual contentions of the parties. 

3. Legal Issues 

Each of UET’s remaining claims for relief remains disputed: (1) breach of fiduciary 

duty; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) intentional 

interference with contract; (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and 

(6) violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

4. Motions 

As the parties discussed with the Court during the October 1, 2018 hearing on the 

Daubert motions, PG&E anticipates bringing a motion prior to trial requesting the Court 

determine as a matter of law the meaning of CPUC-approved Gas Rule No. 23, including 

whether Gas Rule No. 23 allows PG&E to allocate late, partial payments first to PG&E past due 

charges as soon as a residential customer account is considered delinquent or past due – that is, 

when payment is not received by PG&E within 19 days of having mailed the bill to the customer. 

The Court indicated it may treat this motion as a motion in limine. 

Both parties anticipate bringing motions in limine. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 259 Filed 10/18/18 Page 2 of 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 77

of 120
FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT No. 15 Civ. 02383 (RS) (SK)

2

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

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

One Market Street, Steuart Tower, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105

5. Amendment of Pleadings 

The parties do not anticipate any further amendments to the operative pleadings – UET’s 

Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 89) and PG&E’s Answer (Dkt. No. 114).

6. Evidence Preservation 

The parties have represented to each other and to the Court that they have taken adequate 

steps to preserve evidence following the initiation of this Action. 

7. Disclosures

The parties exchanged the required disclosures during the course of discovery. 

8. Discovery 

The parties have completed fact and expert discovery. 

9. Class Actions 

Not applicable. 

10. Related Cases 

One other matter is pending in this district arising from allegations similar to those in 

UET’s complaint. Counsel in each case is the same. The other pending matter is: 

x Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. v. PG&E, et al., No. 16 Civ. 6711 (N.D. Cal.) (JSW) 

(SK)

The Court has determined that this matter is not related. 

11. Relief 

UET seeks damages and attorneys’ fees. Defendants deny UET is entitled to any relief. 

12. Settlement and ADR 

In 2016, the parties pursued settlement with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Elizabeth 

Laporte. In 2017, the parties participated in private mediation with Martin Quinn at JAMS in 

San Francisco. On August 1, 2018, the parties participated in a private mediation with the 

Honorable Carl J. West (Ret.) at JAMS in Los Angeles. The parties remain in contact with 

Judge West, but have made no progress in resolving this matter since August 1. 

PG&E requests referral to a Magistrate Judge for settlement purposes. 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 259 Filed 10/18/18 Page 3 of 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 78

of 120
FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT No. 15 Civ. 02383 (RS) (SK)

3

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

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

One Market Street, Steuart Tower, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105

UET believes the parties have attempted two private mediations and one mediation 

following referral to a Magistrate Judge. None were successful. While UET believes that 

continued discussion with Judge West may result in settlement, it believes that additional 

resources toward mediation with yet a fourth mediator will prove unproductive. 

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes 

The parties declined to consent to referral to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 

14. Other References 

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Kim for discovery purposes. 

15. Narrowing of Issues 

UET’s Position 

UET believes the following issues remain to be decided at trial: 

1. Did PG&E tortiously interfere with UET’s contracts with its customers; 

2. Did PG&E breach its fiduciary duty to UET? 

3. Did PG&E intentionally misrepresent the status of UET’s customer accounts to UET; 

4. Did PG&E negligently misrepresent the status of UET’s customer accounts to UET; 

5. Did PG&E intentionally interference with UET’s prospective economic advantage; 

6. Did PG&E violate the California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; 

7. The amount of damages as a result of PG&E’s wrongdoing. 

As recited below, PG&E’s position represents another bite of the filed tariff and res 

judicata arguments raised and rejected at summary judgment. What this Court decides believes 

to be “compliance” with Gas Rule 23 is not relevant to whether PG&E acted tortiously. Further, 

as set forth below, PG&E’s position may constitute a less-than-forthright attempt to inveigle the 

Court to lose jurisdiction under the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, another argument that PG&E 

put forward and largely lost in its motions practice under Rule 12. 

PG&E’s Position 

As PG&E explained during the October 1, 2018 hearing on the Daubert motions, a 

central legal issue is the meaning of CPUC-approved Gas Rule No. 23 and what constitutes 

compliance under the Rule. For example, under Gas Rule No. 23 is PG&E permitted to allocate 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 259 Filed 10/18/18 Page 4 of 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 79

of 120
FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT No. 15 Civ. 02383 (RS) (SK)

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

One Market Street, Steuart Tower, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105

late, partial payments first to PG&E past due charges as soon as a residential customer account is 

considered delinquent or past due – that is, when payment is not received by PG&E within 19 

days of having mailed the bill to the customer? PG&E maintains the meaning and interpretation 

of Gas Rule No. 23, which is akin to a statute or federal regulation, is an issue of law for the 

Court to decide. See, e.g., Dyke Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 56 Cal. 2d 105, 123 (1961) 

(duly published and filed utility tariffs have “the force and effect of a statute”); Trammell v. W. 

Union Tel. Co., 57 Cal. App. 3d 538, 551 (1976) (tariff provisions “have the force and effect of 

law” and are binding on the public); In re Ford Tailgate Lit., No. 11 Civ. 2953 (RS), 2015 WL 

7571772 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2015), at *8 (the meaning of a federal regulation is a question of 

law for the court); Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 14 Civ. 4741 (RS), 2015 WL 1264756, at *5 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (“The interpretation of a statute is a question of a law”) affirmed in 

part and vacated in part on other grounds, 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).

PG&E is not seeking a determination whether its payment allocation practices complied 

with Gas Rule No. 23 as a matter of fact. Rather, it is seeking a determination of the meaning 

and interpretation of Gas Rule No. 23 as a matter of law. 

Determination of this issue in advance of trial will provide helpful guidance for the 

parties. PG&E also believes a ruling on this legal issue will assist the parties in evaluating the 

case for settlement. 

16. Expedited Trial Procedure 

The parties agree that the trial should not proceed pursuant to the Expedited Trial 

Procedure of General Order No. 64, Attachment A. 

17. Scheduling

The parties do not propose any changes to the Pretrial Conference and Trial date set by 

the Court. Those dates are: 

Pretrial Conference: February 27, 2019 

Trial: March 11, 2019 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 259 Filed 10/18/18 Page 5 of 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 80

of 120
FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT No. 15 Civ. 02383 (RS) (SK)

5

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

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

One Market Street, Steuart Tower, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105

18. Trial

PG&E estimates a 10-day jury trial. UET continues to believe that trial will last 15 days 

to a jury. Although the Court dismissed the individual defendants, the complexity of the facts to 

present has not changed nor has the number of witnesses. 

19. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons 

The parties have filed all necessary disclosures of non-party interested entities or persons. 

20. Professional Conduct 

All counsel have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the Northern 

District of California. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: October 18, 2018 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

By: /s/ Laurie Edelstein 

Laurie Edelstein

Michael Dockterman 

Seth Sias 

Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company 

Dated: October 18, 2018 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

By: /s/ Leah E. Capritta* 

Leah E. Capritta 

Thomas D. Leland 

Charles Coleman III 

Attorneys for Plaintiff United Energy 

Trading, LLC 

*with permission

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 259 Filed 10/18/18 Page 6 of 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 81

of 120
Exhibit 5 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 82

of 120
ADRMOP,PRVADR,REFDIS,REFSET-EDL

U.S. District Court

California Northern District (San Francisco)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-02383-RS

United Energy Trading, LLC v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 

et al

Assigned to: Hon. Richard Seeborg

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte 

(Settlement)

Demand: $5,000,000

Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

Date Filed: 05/28/2015

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt 

Organization

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff 

United Energy Trading, LLC represented by Charles Lagrange Coleman , III 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111-4624 

(415) 743-6900 

Fax: (415) 743-6910 

Email: ccoleman@hklaw.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Ilan Holtzman 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, 28th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

(415) 743-6900 

Fax: (415) 743-6910 

Email: david.holtzman@hklaw.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Garrett S. Garfield 

Holland and Knight LLP 

2300 U.S. Bancorp Tower 

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204 

(503) 517-2931 

Email: garrett.garfield@hklaw.com 

PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leah E. Capritta 

Holland & Knight LLP 

CAND-ECF Page 1 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 83

of 120
1801 California Street 

Suite 5000 

Denver, CO 80202 

(303) 974-6660 

Fax: (303) 974-6659 

Email: leah.capritta@hklaw.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara S. Kaushik 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

(415) 743-6900 

Fax: (415) 743-6910 

Email: tara.kaushik@hklaw.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Drew Leland 

Holland and Knight LLP 

633 17th Street, Suite 2300 

Denver, CO 80202 

(303) 974-6660 

Email: thomas.leland@hklaw.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

a California corporation

represented by Dennis S. Ellis 

Paul Hastings LLP 

515 South Flower Street 

25th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 

213-683-6000 

Fax: 213-627-0705 

Email: dennisellis@paulhastings.com 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie Edelstein 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP 

One Market Plaza 

Spear Tower, Suite 3900 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 365-6770 

Fax: (415) 365-6670 

Email: ledelstein@steptoe.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

CAND-ECF Page 2 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 84

of 120
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Michael Reich 

Paul Hastings LLP 

515 So. Flower Street 

25th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

213-683-6190 

Fax: 213-627-0705 

Email: adamreich@paulhastings.com 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arnold Barba 

LimNexus LLP 

707 Wilshire Boulevard 

46th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

(213) 955-9500 

Fax: (213) 955-9511 

Email: arnold.barba@LimNexus.com 

TERMINATED: 01/31/2018

Courtney Turco DeThomas 

Paul Hastings LLP 

515 S. Flower Street 

25th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

213-683-6000 

Fax: 213-627-0705 

Email: 

courtneydethomas@paulhastings.com 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Dockterman 

Steptoe and Johnson LLP 

227 West Monroe St. 

4700 

Chicago, IL 60606 

312-577-1243 

Email: mdockterman@steptoe.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas James Begakis 

LimNexus LLP 

707 Wilshire Boulevard 

46th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

CAND-ECF Page 3 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 85

of 120
(213) 955-9500 

Fax: (213) 955-9511 

Email: Nick.Begakis@limnexus.com 

TERMINATED: 01/31/2018

Seth Reed Sias 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP 

One Market Plaza 

Spear Tower, Suite 3900 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 365-6770 

Fax: (415) 365-6670 

Email: ssias@steptoe.com 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant 

Albert Torres

an individual 

TERMINATED: 03/05/2018

represented by Dennis S. Ellis 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie Edelstein 

(See above for address) 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Michael Reich 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arnold Barba 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 01/31/2018

Courtney Turco DeThomas 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Dockterman 

(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas James Begakis 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 01/31/2018

CAND-ECF Page 4 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 86

of 120
Seth Reed Sias 

(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant 

Bill Chen

an individual 

TERMINATED: 03/05/2018

represented by Dennis S. Ellis 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie Edelstein 

(See above for address) 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Michael Reich 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arnold Barba 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 01/31/2018

Courtney Turco DeThomas 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Dockterman 

(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas James Begakis 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 01/31/2018

Seth Reed Sias 

(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant 

Tanisha Robinson

an individual 

TERMINATED: 11/20/2017

represented by Dennis S. Ellis 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CAND-ECF Page 5 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 87

of 120
Laurie Edelstein 

(See above for address) 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Michael Reich 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arnold Barba 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 01/31/2018

Courtney Turco DeThomas 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 03/15/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Dockterman 

(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas James Begakis 

(See above for address) 

TERMINATED: 01/31/2018

Seth Reed Sias 

(See above for address) 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party 

Vista Energy Marketing, LP represented by Leah E. Capritta 

(See above for address) 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Brian Melzer 

Holland & Knight LLP 

400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

213-896-2496 

Fax: 213-896-2450 

Email: nicholas.melzer@hklaw.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

CAND-ECF Page 6 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 88

of 120
05/28/2015 1 COMPLAINT (with Jury Trial Demand) against All Defendants, (Filing Fee: 

$400.00, receipt number 0971-9556237). Filed by United Energy Trading, 

LLC. (Coleman, Charles) (Filed on 5/28/2015) Modified on 5/29/2015 (cjlS, 

COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2015)

05/28/2015 2 Civil Cover Sheet by United Energy Trading LLC . (Coleman, Charles) (Filed 

on 5/28/2015) (Entered: 05/28/2015)

05/28/2015 3 Proposed Summons. (Coleman, Charles) (Filed on 5/28/2015) (Entered: 

05/28/2015)

05/28/2015 4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. 

Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the 

Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing 

orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For 

information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.

Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at 

www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and 

returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the 

initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent 

by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (bwS, COURT 

STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2015) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

05/29/2015 5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case 

Management Statement due by 8/25/2015. Case Management Conference 

set for 9/1/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (cjlS, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2015) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

05/29/2015 6 Summons Issued as to Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha 

Robinson, Albert Torres. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2015) 

(Entered: 05/29/2015)

05/29/2015 7 Application for Refund re 1 Complaint, Receipt Number 0971-9556224 by 

United Energy Trading LLC. (Coleman, Charles) (Filed on 5/29/2015) 

(Entered: 05/29/2015)

06/09/2015 8 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Re: Leah E. Capritta (Filing fee 

$ 305, receipt number 0971-9584287) filed by United Energy Trading LLC. 

(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 6/9/2015) Modified on 6/10/2015 (cjlS, COURT 

STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/09/2015 9 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Re: Thomas D. Leland, 

Certificate of Good Standing is provided in docket #11 (Filing fee $ 305, 

receipt number 0971-9584435) filed by United Energy Trading LLC. (Leland, 

Thomas) (Filed on 6/9/2015) Modified on 6/10/2015 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). 

(Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/09/2015 10 ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 8 Motion for Pro Hac 

Vice re: Leah Capritta. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2015) 

(Entered: 06/09/2015)

CAND-ECF Page 7 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 89

of 120
06/09/2015 11 ERRATA re 9 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Re: Thomas D. 

Leland, providing copy of Certificate of Good Standing by United Energy 

Trading LLC. (Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 6/9/2015) Modified on 6/10/2015 

(cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/09/2015 20 Refund re 7 Application for Refund approved. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed 

on 6/9/2015) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

06/10/2015 12 ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 9 Motion for Pro Hac 

Vice re: Thomas D. Leland. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

6/10/2015) (Entered: 06/10/2015)

06/11/2015 13 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by 

United Energy Trading LLC.. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 6/11/2015) (Entered: 

06/11/2015)

06/12/2015 14 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly

reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not 

consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence 

in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to 

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by 

separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. 

ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE 

CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE 

RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS 

CASE IS REASSIGNED. 

This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this 

notice. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015) (Entered: 06/12/2015)

06/12/2015 15 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Thelton 

E. Henderson for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. 

Westmore no longer assigned to the case. Signed by the Executive 

Committee on June 12, 2015. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015) 

(Entered: 06/12/2015)

06/17/2015 16 NOTICE by United Energy Trading, LLC re Notice of Related Case Under 

Civil L.R. 3-12 and Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should 

be Related Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 (Unopposed) (Leland, Thomas) (Filed 

on 6/17/2015) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

06/17/2015 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United Energy Trading, LLC re 16 Notice 

(Other) of Related Cases (Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 6/17/2015) (Entered: 

06/17/2015)

06/18/2015 18 MOTION to Relate Case filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Leland, 

Thomas) (Filed on 6/18/2015) (Entered: 06/18/2015)

06/18/2015 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United Energy Trading, LLC re 18

MOTION to Relate Case (Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 6/18/2015) (Entered: 

06/18/2015)

CAND-ECF Page 8 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 90

of 120
06/19/2015 21 NOTICE by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert 

Torres of Non-Opposition to Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases 

Should Be Related Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 

6/19/2015) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

06/24/2015 22 CLERK'S NOTICE re 18 Motion to Relate Cases. The court has reviewed the 

motion and determined that cases C15-2383 TEH and C15-2575 DMR are not 

related and no reassignments shall occur. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

6/24/2015) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

06/25/2015 23 CLERK'S NOTICE ON REASSIGNMENT. You are noticed that the Court has 

scheduled an Initial Case Management Conference before Judge Thelton E. 

Henderson upon reassignment. For a copy of Judge Henderson's Standing 

Order and other information, please refer to the Court's website at 

www.cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. 

There is no document associated with this entry.)

Case Management Statement due by 9/4/2015. Initial Case Management 

Conference set for 9/14/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San 

Francisco. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2015) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

06/25/2015 24 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 

06/25/15. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2015) (Entered: 

06/25/2015)

06/29/2015 25 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by United Energy Trading, 

LLC. Service waived by All Defendants. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 6/29/2015) 

(Entered: 06/29/2015)

06/29/2015 26 Certificate of Interested Entities by United Energy Trading, LLC identifying 

Corporate Parent United Energy Corporation, Other Affiliate Robert Williams, 

Other Affiliate Thomas Williams, Other Affiliate Matthew Hurley, Other 

Affiliate TW Holdings, LLC, Other Affiliate Misouri River Royalty 

Corporation, Other Affiliate Rainbow Gas Company, Other Affiliate Loren 

Kopseng for United Energy Trading, LLC. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

6/29/2015) (Entered: 06/29/2015)

06/30/2015 27 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Charles 

R. Breyer for all further proceedings. Judge Hon. Thelton E. Henderson 

no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 6/30/15. 

(as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2015) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

07/01/2015 28 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/1/2015. 

(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2015) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

07/02/2015 29 ORDER, Case reassigned to Hon. Richard Seeborg. Hon. Charles R. 

Breyer no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 

7/2/15. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2015) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/02/2015 30 CLERK'S NOTICE SCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 8/27/2015. Case 

Management Conference set for 9/3/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th 

Floor, San Francisco. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2015) (Entered: 

07/02/2015)

CAND-ECF Page 9 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 91

of 120
07/07/2015 31 WAIVER and Acceptance of Service by United Energy Trading, LLC 

(Coleman, Charles) (Filed on 7/7/2015) Modified on 7/8/2015 (gbaS, COURT 

STAFF). (Entered: 07/07/2015)

07/07/2015 32 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas James Begakis on Behalf of Defendants

(Begakis, Nicholas) (Filed on 7/7/2015) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

07/07/2015 33 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Michael Reich on Behalf of Defendants

(Reich, Adam) (Filed on 7/7/2015) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

08/07/2015 34 STIPULATION to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint Pursuant to 

Local Rule 6-1(a) filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha 

Robinson, Albert Torres. (Begakis, Nicholas) (Filed on 8/7/2015) (Entered: 

08/07/2015)

08/18/2015 35 ADR Clerk's Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. (tjs, COURT 

STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/24/2015 36 Certificate of Interested Entities by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Ellis, Dennis) 

(Filed on 8/24/2015) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 37 Certificate of Interested Entities by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 

Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15 (Ellis, 

Dennis) (Filed on 8/24/2015) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 38 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 8/24/2015) (Entered: 

08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 39 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Albert 

Torres (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 8/24/2015) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 40 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Bill 

Chen (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 8/24/2015) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 41 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Tanisha 

Robinson (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 8/24/2015) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 42 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Capritta, 

Leah) (Filed on 8/24/2015) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 43 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR by United Energy 

Trading, LLC filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

8/24/2015) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/27/2015 44 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and proposed Order filed by United 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 8/27/2015) (Entered: 

08/27/2015)

08/31/2015 45 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas 

& Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. Motion Hearing set for 

10/22/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. 

Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 9/14/2015. Replies due by 9/21/2015. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration Dennis S. Ellis, # 2 Proposed Order)(Ellis, 

Dennis) (Filed on 8/31/2015) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

CAND-ECF Page 10 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 92

of 120
08/31/2015 46 Request for Judicial Notice re 45 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)

(6) filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert 

Torres. (Related document(s) 45 ) (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 8/31/2015) 

(Entered: 08/31/2015)

09/01/2015 47 CLERK'S NOTICE The Case Management Conference previously set for 

9/3/2015 is continued to 11/12/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, 

San Francisco. The Case Management Statement is due by 11/5/2015. This is a 

text only entry. There is no document associated with this notice. (rslc2, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2015) (Entered: 09/01/2015)

09/02/2015 48 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING MOTION [#45] HEARING. Motion 

Hearing previously set for 10/22/2015 Continued to 11/5/2015 at 01:30 PM in 

Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. (This is 

a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with 

this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2015) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

09/03/2015 49 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Response to 

Complaint and for Order Changing Time filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration 

of Adam M. Reich, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reich, Adam) (Filed on 9/3/2015) 

(Entered: 09/03/2015)

09/03/2015 50 ERRATA re 49 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding 

Response to Complaint and for Order Changing Time by Bill Chen, Pacific 

Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Reich, Adam) (Filed on 

9/3/2015) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

09/04/2015 51 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 45 MOTION to 

Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Stipulated) filed by United Energy 

Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas D. Leland)(Leland, 

Thomas) (Filed on 9/4/2015) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

09/04/2015 52 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 51 Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Response/Reply. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2015) 

(Entered: 09/04/2015)

09/14/2015 53 Response re 46 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. (Leland, Thomas) 

(Filed on 9/14/2015) (Entered: 09/14/2015)

09/21/2015 54 RESPONSE to re 53 Response (Defendants' Reply to United Energy Trading, 

LLC's Response to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of 

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)) by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 

9/21/2015) (Entered: 09/21/2015)

10/01/2015 55 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha 

Robinson, Albert Torres. Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2015 01:30 PM in 

Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. 

Responses due by 10/15/2015. Replies due by 10/22/2015. (Attachments: # 1

Declaration of Dennis S. Ellis, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion for 

Sanctions)(Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 10/1/2015) (Entered: 10/01/2015)

CAND-ECF Page 11 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 93

of 120
10/14/2015 56 RESPONSE (re 45 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ) filed 

byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. (Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 10/14/2015) 

(Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015 57 Proposed Order re 56 Opposition/Response to Motion by United Energy 

Trading, LLC. (Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015 58 Request for Judicial Notice re 56 Opposition/Response to Motion to Dismiss 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 56 ) (Leland, 

Thomas) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/15/2015 59 Response re 55 MOTION for Sanctions byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration Charles Coleman, # 2 Declaration Thomas 

Leland, # 3 Proposed Order)(Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 10/15/2015) (Entered: 

10/15/2015)

10/15/2015 60 Declaration of Leah Capritta in Support of 59 Response to Motion for 

Sanctions filed byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 

1-10, # 2 Exhibit 11-19)(Related document(s) 59 ) (Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 

10/15/2015) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/22/2015 61 REPLY (re 55 MOTION for Sanctions ) filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration 

(Supplemental) of Dennis S. Ellis)(Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 10/22/2015) 

(Entered: 10/22/2015)

10/28/2015 62 REPLY (re 45 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ) filed byBill 

Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Ellis, 

Dennis) (Filed on 10/28/2015) (Entered: 10/28/2015)

11/04/2015 63 NOTICE of Appearance by Arnold Barba on Behalf of Defendants (Barba, 

Arnold) (Filed on 11/4/2015) (Entered: 11/04/2015)

11/05/2015 64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Richard Seeborg: Motion 

Hearing held on 11/5/2015 re 55 MOTION for Sanctions and 45 MOTION 

to Dismiss; Matters taken under submission. Court Reporter: Kathy 

Sullivan. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/5/2015) (Entered: 

11/05/2015)

11/05/2015 65 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by United Energy Trading, LLC for Court Reporter 

Katherine Sullivan. (Holtzman, David) (Filed on 11/5/2015) (Entered: 

11/05/2015)

11/05/2015 66 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Amended) filed by United 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/5/2015) (Entered: 

11/05/2015)

11/05/2015 67 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Request to Participate in Case 

Management Conference by Telephone filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 11/5/2015) (Entered: 11/05/2015)

11/05/2015 68

CAND-ECF Page 12 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 94

of 120
TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha 

Robinson, Albert Torres for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Ellis, Dennis) 

(Filed on 11/5/2015) (Entered: 11/05/2015)

11/05/2015 69 CLERK'S NOTICE The Case Management Conference set for November 12, 

2015 will be held at 11:00 AM. All parties shall appear telephonically and must 

contact Court Conference at (866) 582-6878 at least one week prior to the 

Conference to arrange their participation. This is a text only entry. There is no 

document associated with this notice. (rslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

11/5/2015) (Entered: 11/05/2015)

11/06/2015 70 Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/5/15, before Judge Richard Seeborg. 

Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, telephone number 415-794-

6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript 

may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased 

through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of 

Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any 

Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 

business days from date of this filing. (Re 65 Transcript Order, 68 Transcript 

Order ) Redaction Request due 11/27/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set 

for 12/7/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/4/2016. (Related 

documents(s) 65 , 68 ) (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 11/6/2015) (Entered: 

11/06/2015)

11/12/2015 71 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Richard Seeborg: Initial 

Case Management Conference held telephonic on 11/12/2015. Scheduling 

Order to follow. Court Reporter: Not Reported. Plaintiff Attorney Leah 

Capritta, Thomas Leland. Defendant Attorney Dennis Ellis. Interpreter 

N/A.This is a text only Minute Entry (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 

11/12/2015) Modified on 11/12/2015 (cl, COURT STAFF). Modified on 

11/13/2015 (cl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2015)

11/12/2015 72 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Signed

by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/12/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

11/12/2015) (Entered: 11/12/2015)

11/12/2015 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte for Settlement 

(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2015) (Entered: 11/12/2015)

11/12/2015 73 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Further Case 

Management Conference set for 6/9/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th 

Floor, San Francisco. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/5/2017 10:00 

AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Selection and Jury 

Trial set for 11/6/2017 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San 

Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Referred to Magistrate Judge for 

settlement conference. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/12/2015. 

(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2015) (Entered: 11/12/2015)

11/20/2015 74 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting in part and denying in part 

45 Motion to Dismiss; denying 55 Motion for Sanctions. (cl, COURT 

STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2015) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

CAND-ECF Page 13 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 95

of 120
12/11/2015 75 NOTICE of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order by

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. A Settlement Conference is set for 

2/11/2016 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (shyS, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2015) (Entered: 12/11/2015)

12/18/2015 76 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial against All 

Defendants. Filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 

12/18/2015) Modified on 12/18/2015 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 

12/18/2015)

12/23/2015 77 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 76 Amended Complaint 

Extension of Response Time filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 

Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dennis S. 

Ellis, # 2 Proposed Order)(Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 12/23/2015) (Entered:

12/23/2015)

01/04/2016 78 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 77 Stipulated request to 

extend time to respond to amended complaint. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed 

on 1/4/2016) (Entered: 01/04/2016)

02/04/2016 79 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas 

& Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. Motion Hearing set for 

3/10/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. 

Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 2/18/2016. Replies due by 2/25/2016. 

(Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 2/4/2016) (Entered: 02/04/2016)

02/04/2016 80 ORDER Granting Defendant Albert Torres' Request to be Excused from 

Personal Attendance at the Settlement Conference by Magistrate Judge 

Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2016) 

(Entered: 02/04/2016)

02/11/2016 81 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 79 MOTION to Dismiss 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: 

# 1 Declaration of Thomas Leland)(Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 2/11/2016) 

(Entered: 02/11/2016)

02/11/2016 82 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE [#81] FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF 

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, CONTINUANCE OF 

HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/11/16. (cl, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2016) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

02/11/2016 Reset Motion Hearing as to 79 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

Motion Hearing previously set for 3/10/2016 Continued to 4/21/2016 at 01:30 

PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. 

(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2016) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

02/11/2016 83 Minute Entry for settlement conference conducted on 2/11/2016 by 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte regarding Settlement Conference. 

Case did not settle. Counsel to confer by 2/15/2016 on exchange of 

information discussed at the settlement conference in furtherance of 

today's settlement conference. On or before 2/18/2016, counsel shall email 

a confidential update to Magistrate Judge Laporte at 

CAND-ECF Page 14 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 96

of 120
edlcrd@cand.uscourts.gov regarding follow-up and scheduling a further 

settlement conference. FTR Time Not Recorded. Plaintiff Attorney 

Thomas Leland and Leah Capritta. Defendant Attorney Dennis Ellis and 

Adam Reich. This is a text only Minute Entry (shyS, COURT STAFF) 

(Date Filed: 2/11/2016) Modified on 2/18/2016 (shyS, COURT STAFF). 

(Entered: 02/16/2016)

03/18/2016 84 RESPONSE (re 79 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ) filed 

byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Capritta, 

Leah) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

04/01/2016 85 REPLY (re 79 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ) filed byBill 

Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Ellis, 

Dennis) (Filed on 4/1/2016) (Entered: 04/01/2016)

04/13/2016 86 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting in part and denying in part 

79 Motion to Dismiss. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2016) (Entered: 

04/13/2016)

04/25/2016 87 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Dennis S. Ellis (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 

4/25/2016) (Entered: 04/25/2016)

04/26/2016 88 NOTICE of Appearance by Courtney Turco DeThomas on Behalf of 

Defendants (DeThomas, Courtney) (Filed on 4/26/2016) (Entered: 04/26/2016)

05/13/2016 89 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; Jury Trial Demanded against Bill Chen, 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. Filed by United 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 5/13/2016) Modified on 

5/13/2016 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2016)

05/24/2016 90 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to Respond to 

Second Amended Complaint and for an Enlargement of Time to File 

Opposition and Reply Briefs if a Motion to Dismiss is Filed filed by Bill Chen, 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 

1 Declaration of Adam M. Reich, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reich, Adam) (Filed on 

5/24/2016) (Entered: 05/24/2016)

05/24/2016 91 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 90 to Extend Time to Respond to 

Second Amended Complaint and for an Enlargement of Time to File

Opposition and Reply Briefs if a Motion to Dismiss is Filed. Signed by 

Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/24/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

5/24/2016) (Entered: 05/24/2016)

05/25/2016 92 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (Stipulated Protective Order)

filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 5/25/2016) 

(Entered: 05/25/2016)

05/26/2016 93 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard 

Seeborg on 5/26/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2016) (Entered: 

05/26/2016)

05/26/2016 94 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (to Extend Time to Produce 

Expert Rebuttal Disclosures Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12)

CAND-ECF Page 15 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 97

of 120
filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2

Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 5/26/2016) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/27/2016 95 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 94 stipulated request to 

extend time to produce expert and expert rebuttal disclosures. (cl, COURT 

STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2016) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

06/02/2016 96 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Request to Reschedule 

Further Case Management Conference filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration 

of Adam M. Reich, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reich, Adam) (Filed on 6/2/2016) 

(Entered: 06/02/2016)

06/02/2016 97 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by United Energy 

Trading, LLC. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 6/2/2016) (Entered: 06/02/2016)

06/02/2016 98 Joint MOTION to Appear by Telephone as Alternative Relief filed by United 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) 

(Filed on 6/2/2016) (Entered: 06/02/2016)

06/06/2016 99 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 8/4/2016. Further Case 

Management Conference set for 8/11/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th 

Floor, San Francisco. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is 

no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

6/6/2016) (Entered: 06/06/2016)

06/10/2016 100 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert 

Torres. Motion Hearing set for 8/11/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th 

Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 

6/24/2016. Replies due by 7/1/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ellis, 

Dennis) (Filed on 6/10/2016) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

07/01/2016 101 RESPONSE (re 100 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ) UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLCS 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6) filed byUnited 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT 

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (b)(6))(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 7/1/2016) (Entered: 

07/01/2016)

07/15/2016 102 REPLY (re 100 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6) ) filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha 

Robinson, Albert Torres. (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 7/15/2016) (Entered: 

07/15/2016)

07/22/2016 103 MOTION to Relate Case Under Civil L.R. 3-12 and Administrative Motion to 

Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 filed 

by Vista Energy Marketing, LP. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Melzer, 

Nicholas) (Filed on 7/22/2016) (Entered: 07/22/2016)

CAND-ECF Page 16 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 98

of 120
07/22/2016 104 NOTICE by Vista Energy Marketing, LP Certificate of Service Re Notice of 

Related Case Under Civil L.R. 3-12 and Administrative Motion to Consider 

Whether Cases Should be Related Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 (Melzer, 

Nicholas) (Filed on 7/22/2016) (Entered: 07/22/2016)

07/26/2016 105 RESPONSE (re 103 MOTION to Relate Case Under Civil L.R. 3-12 and 

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Pursuant 

to Civil L.R. 7-11 ) filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha 

Robinson, Albert Torres. (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 7/26/2016) (Entered: 

07/26/2016)

08/02/2016 106 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at Further CMC and Hearing on Motion to 

Dismiss filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, 

Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Ellis, Dennis) 

(Filed on 8/2/2016) (Entered: 08/02/2016)

08/03/2016 107 CLERK'S NOTICE: THE MOTION TO DISMISS 100 SCHEDULED FOR 

HEARING ON AUGUST 11, 2016 SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT 

ORAL ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7-1(b). 

ACCORDINGLY, THE MOTION HEARING IS VACATED. (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this 

entry.) (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2016) (Entered: 08/03/2016)

08/04/2016 108 MOTION to Appear by Telephone Unoopoesd Request to Appear by 

Telephone at Further Case Management Conference filed by United Energy 

Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

8/4/2016) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/04/2016 109 ORDER denying 100 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants shall file an answer 

within 21 days of the date of this order. The case management conference 

previously set for 8/11/2016 at 1:30 p.m. will now be held that same 

morning at 11:00 a.m. All parties shall appear telephonically and must 

contact Court Conference at (866) 582-6878 at least one week prior to the 

Conference to arrange their participation. Signed by Judge Richard 

Seeborg on 8/4/2016. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2016) 

(Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/04/2016 Set/Reset Hearing: Further Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 

8/11/2016 at11:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (afmS, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2016) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/04/2016 110 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 8/4/2016) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/08/2016 111 CLERK'S NOTICE The court reviewed the motion and determined that no 

cases are related and not reassignments shall occur. (cl, COURT STAFF) 

(Filed on 8/8/2016) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/11/2016 112 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Richard Seeborg: Further 

Case Management Conference held telephonically on 8/11/2016.Case 

Management Scheduling Order to Follow.Total Time in Court 10 minutes. 

Not Reported or Recorded. Plaintiff Attorney: Leah Capritta, Thomas 

CAND-ECF Page 17 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 99

of 120
Leland. Defendant Attorney: Dennis Ellis. This is a text only Minute Entry

(cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/11/2016) (Entered: 08/11/2016)

08/11/2016 113 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER. Further 

Case Management Conference set for 4/20/2017 at 10:00 AM in 

Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard

Seeborg on 8/11/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2016) (Entered: 

08/11/2016)

08/25/2016 114 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 

8/25/2016) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

10/05/2016 115 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Expert Disclosure 

Deadlines filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, 

Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dennis S. Ellis, # 2 Proposed 

Order)(Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 10/5/2016) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

10/11/2016 116 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND EXPERT 

DISCLOSURE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULES 

6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/11/16. (cl, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2016) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

11/02/2016 117 Discovery Letter Brief Identifying Disputes Regarding Defendant Pacific Gas 

& Electric Company's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Nos. 2-4

filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 

2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/2/2016) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/03/2016 118 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Discovery 

purposes. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/3/16. (cl, COURT 

STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2016) (Entered: 11/03/2016)

11/04/2016 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim for Discovery (ahm, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2016) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/04/2016 119 NOTICE OF REFERRAL FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate 

Judge Sallie Kim on 11/4/2016. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

11/4/2016) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/28/2016 120 Joint Discovery Letter BriefIDENTIFYING DISPUTES REGARDING 

DEFENDANT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYS RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORY NOS. 24 filed by United Energy Trading, 

LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D. Reyes Deposition, # 2 Exhibit PG&E's 

Supp. Resp. to Interrogatories 2-4)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/28/2016) 

(Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/28/2016 121 Joint Discovery Letter Brief IDENTIFYING DISPUTES REGARDING 

DEFENDANT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYS RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 filed by United Energy 

Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PG&E Resp. to RFP No. 14)

(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/28/2016) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/29/2016 122

CAND-ECF Page 18 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

100 of 120
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim denying 120 Discovery Letter 

Brief; denying 121 Discovery Letter Brief. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed 

on 11/29/2016) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

11/29/2016 123 Joint Discovery Letter Brief IDENTIFYING DISPUTES REGARDING 

DEFENDANT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYS RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6 filed by United Energy 

Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PG&E Resp. to RFP No. 6, # 2

Exhibit D. Reyes Dep.)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/29/2016) (Entered: 

11/29/2016)

12/01/2016 124 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE ON REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION NO. 6: granting in part and reserving ruling in part on 

123 Discovery Letter Brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 

12/1/2016. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2016) (Entered: 

12/01/2016)

12/12/2016 125 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas James Begakis (Begakis, Nicholas) (Filed 

on 12/12/2016) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

12/12/2016 126 Discovery Letter Brief Identifying Disputes Regarding Defendant Pacific Gas 

& Electric Company's Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 5, 18-20 and 

22 filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2

Exhibit 2)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 12/12/2016) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

12/12/2016 127 Discovery Letter BriefRe: Plaintiff's Request to Compel Production by January 

6, 2017 filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2

Exhibit 2)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 12/12/2016) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

12/12/2016 128 Discovery Letter BriefRe: Disclosure of Private Consumer Information in 

Violation of CPUC Requirements filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric 

Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (PG&E's 

Objections and Responses to Requests for Production, Set One))(Begakis, 

Nicholas) (Filed on 12/12/2016) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016 129 Discovery Letter Brief re UET's Request for Production No. 16 filed by United 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 Reyes Dep., # 2 Exhibit 

Ex 2 PG&E Resps to Second Set of Requests for Production, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3 

PG&E Resps to First Set of Interrogatories)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

12/13/2016) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016 130 ORDER SETTING HEARING re: 126 Discovery Letter Brief Identifying 

Disputes Regarding Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Responses 

to Requests for Production Nos. 5, 18-20 and 22, 129 Discovery Letter Brief

re UET's Request for Production No. 16, 128 Discovery Letter BriefRe: 

Disclosure of Private Consumer Information in Violation of CPUC 

Requirements, 127 Discovery Letter BriefRe: Plaintiff's Request to Compel 

Production by January 6, 2017. Motion Hearing set for 12/21/2016 02:00 

PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge 

Sallie Kim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 12/13/2016. (mklS, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2016) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/15/2016 131

CAND-ECF Page 19 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

101 of 120
Declaration of David Reyes in Support of 124 Order filed byPacific Gas & 

Electric Co.. (Related document(s) 124 ) (Barba, Arnold) (Filed on 

12/15/2016) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/16/2016 132 FURTHER ORDER REGARDING 123 DISCOVERY DISPUTE ON 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6 by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. 

(mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2016) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/20/2016 133 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO 

PRODUCE EXPERT AND EXPERT REBUTTAL DISCLOSURES filed by 

United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Leah A. 

Capritta, # 2 Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 12/20/2016) (Entered: 

12/20/2016)

12/20/2016 134 MOTION to Continue Trial Date by 90 Days Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 

7-11, 40-1 filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, 

Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dennis S. Ellis, # 2 Proposed 

Order)(Ellis, Dennis) (Filed on 12/20/2016) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

12/21/2016 135 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO PRODUCE 

EXPERT AND EXPERT REBUTTAL DISCLOSURES. Signed by Judge 

Richard Seeborg on 12/21/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2016) 

(Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/21/2016 136 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 134 Motion to Continue. (cl, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2016) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/21/2016 Set/Reset Hearing: Jury Selection/Trial set for 2/5/2018 at 09:00 AM in 

Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Pretrial 

Conference set for 1/11/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San 

Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

12/21/2016) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/21/2016 137 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim: 

Motion Hearing held on 12/21/2016 re 126 Discovery Letter Brief

Identifying Disputes Regarding Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company's 

Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 5, 18-20 and 22, 127 Discovery 

Letter BriefRe: Plaintiff's Request to Compel Production by January 6, 

2017, 128 Discovery Letter BriefRe: Disclosure of Private Consumer 

Information in Violation of CPUC Requirements, 129 Discovery Letter 

Brief re UET's Request for Production No. 16. The Court will issue a 

written order. (FTR Time 2:00-2:36.) 

Plaintiff Attorney: Leah Capritta, Jesse Lanier, and Kenneth Thomson 

(UET). 

Defendant Attorney: Dennis Ellis, Arnold Barba, Nicholas Begakis. 

This is a text only Minute Entry (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 

12/21/2016) Modified on 3/9/2017: Matter transcribed by Tara Bauer 

(ECHO Reporting). (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/21/2016 138

CAND-ECF Page 20 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

102 of 120
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES (Docket nos. 126 , 127 , 128 , and 

129 ) by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

12/21/2016) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

03/02/2017 139 MOTION to Appear by Telephone Request to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim for 

Telephonic Conference filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 

1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 3/2/2017) 

(Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017 140 NOTICE of Appearance by Laurie Edelstein on Behalf of Defendants

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 3/2/2017) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017 141 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 139 MOTION to Appear by Telephone Request 

to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim for Telephonic Conference ) filed byBill Chen, 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 

1 Declaration Declaration of Laurie Edelstein in Support of Response to United 

Energy Trading, LLC's Request to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim for Telephonic 

Conference)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 3/2/2017) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017 142 NOTICE of Appearance by Seth Reed Sias on Behalf of Defendants (Sias, 

Seth) (Filed on 3/2/2017) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/03/2017 143 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim denying 139 Request for 

Telephone Conference. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2017) 

(Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/09/2017 144 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 12-21-2016 before Magistrate 

Judge Sallie Kim by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., for Court Reporter FTR - San 

Francisco. (Barba, Arnold) (Filed on 3/9/2017) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

03/10/2017 145 Transcript of Proceedings of the official sound recording held on 12/21/16, 

before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. FTR/Transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc., 

telephone number 8584537590. Tape Number: FTR 2:00 - 2:36. Per General 

Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed 

only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the 

Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript 

Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of 

Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days 

from date of this filing. (Re 144 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 

3/31/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/10/2017. Release of 

Transcript Restriction set for 6/8/2017. (Related documents(s) 144 ) (tgb, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2017) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/13/2017 146 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 12/21/2016 before Magistrate 

Judge Sallie Kim by United Energy Trading, LLC, for Court Reporter FTR - 

San Francisco. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 3/13/2017) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/15/2017 147 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendants filed by Bill Chen, Pacific 

Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. Responses due by 

3/29/2017. Replies due by 4/5/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ellis, 

Dennis) (Filed on 3/15/2017) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017 148

CAND-ECF Page 21 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

103 of 120
ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 147 Motion to Withdraw as 

Attorney.. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2017) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/31/2017 149 Proposed Order Amending Stipulated Protective Order by Bill Chen, Pacific 

Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Edelstein, Laurie) 

(Filed on 3/31/2017) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

03/31/2017 150 *Filed in error. Please disregard. Incorrect document attached. Refiled at 

docket no. 151 .*

AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate 

Judge Sallie Kim on 3/31/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2017) 

Modified on 3/31/2017 (mklS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/31/2017 

(mklS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2017)

03/31/2017 151 AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by 

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 3/31/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed 

on 3/31/2017) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

04/05/2017 152 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to Disclose 

Experts filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 

2 Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 4/5/2017) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

04/07/2017 153 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 152 stipulated request to 

extend time to disclose experts pursuant to civil local rules 6-1(b), 6-2, 

7-12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2017) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/11/2017 154 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 113 Order, Set Hearings 

Stipulated Request to Reschedule Case Management Conference filed by Bill 

Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laurie Edelstein in Support of Stipulated 

Request to Reschedule Case Management Conference, # 2 Proposed Order 

Granting Stipulated Request to Reschedule Case Management Conference)

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 4/11/2017) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 155 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Reschedule Case Management 

Conference. Further Case Management Conference previously set for 

4/20/2017 Continued to 5/11/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th 

Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/11/17. (cl, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2017) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/21/2017 156 STIPULATION Regarding Coordination of Depositions in Similar Actions

filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert 

Torres. (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 4/21/2017) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

05/04/2017 157 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FURTHER JOINT CASE 

MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 

Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 5/4/2017) 

(Entered: 05/04/2017)

05/11/2017 158 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Richard Seeborg:

Further Case Management Conference held on 5/11/2017. The parties are 

to contact chambers at their earliest convenience if a mediation referral is 

needed.

CAND-ECF Page 22 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

104 of 120
Total Time in Court: 5 Minutes.

Court Reporter: Not Reported.

Plaintiff Attorney Thomas Leland.

Defendant Attorney Laurie Edelstein.

This is a text-only Minute Entry. There is no pdf image associated with 

this entry. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/11/2017) (Entered: 

05/11/2017)

05/19/2017 159 STIPULATION re 1 Complaint of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of 

Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 2 filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

5/19/2017) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

06/23/2017 160 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STIPULATED REQUEST TO 

EXTEND REBUTTAL EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINE filed by 

Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF LAURIE EDELSTEIN IN 

SUPPORT OF STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND REBUTTAL 

EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINE, # 2 Proposed Order 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND 

REBUTTAL EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINE)(Edelstein, 

Laurie) (Filed on 6/23/2017) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/26/2017 161 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 160 TO EXTEND REBUTTAL 

EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINE. Signed by Judge 

Richard Seeborg on 6/26/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2017) 

(Entered: 06/26/2017)

07/05/2017 162 NOTICE of Change of Firm Address by Laurie Edelstein (Edelstein, Laurie) 

(Filed on 7/5/2017) Modified on 7/7/2017 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 

07/05/2017)

07/14/2017 163 Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Dispute Concerning Production of 

UET Employees for Depositions in San Francisco filed by Bill Chen, Pacific 

Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 

7/14/2017) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/21/2017 164 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim Re 163 Discovery Letter Brief on 

Deposition Location. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2017) 

(Entered: 07/21/2017)

07/25/2017 165 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Filed by Michael Dockterman

( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11574476.) filed by Bill Chen, Pacific 

Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1

Certificate of Good Standing)(Dockterman, Michael) (Filed on 7/25/2017) 

(Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017 166

CAND-ECF Page 23 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

105 of 120
ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 165 Motion for Pro Hac Vice 

as to Michael Dockterman. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2017) 

(Entered: 07/25/2017)

08/09/2017 167 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt 

number 0971-11615364.) filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Garfield, 

Garrett) (Filed on 8/9/2017) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/09/2017 168 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 167 Motion for Pro Hac Vice 

as to Garrett S. Garfield. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2017) 

(Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/10/2017 169 NOTICE of Appearance by Garrett S. Garfield (Garfield, Garrett) (Filed on 

8/10/2017) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/18/2017 170 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Deadline to 

Supplement Expert Report filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 8/18/2017) 

Modified on 8/18/2017 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017 171 Declaration of Leah Capritta in Support of 170 STIPULATION WITH 

PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Deadline to Supplement Expert Report filed 

by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Related document(s) 170 ) (Capritta, Leah) 

(Filed on 8/18/2017) Modified on 8/18/2017 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). 

(Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/24/2017 172 STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING 170 REQUEST TO EXTEND 

DEADLINE TO SUPPLEMENT EXPERT REPORT. Signed by Judge 

Richard Seeborg on 8/24/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2017) 

(Entered: 08/24/2017)

09/21/2017 173 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Depositions, 

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositve Motions filed by 

United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed 

Order)(Leland, Thomas) (Filed on 9/21/2017) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/22/2017 174 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 173 Motion for Extension of 

Time to Complete Discovery; granting 173 Motion for Extension of Time 

to File. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/22/2017 175 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 9/22/2017) (Entered: 

09/22/2017)

09/25/2017 176 Joint Discovery Letter BriefRegarding Treatment of Documents Used at 

Deposition of Ken Bohn filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 

1 Exhibit)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/27/2017 177 ORDER SETTING HEARING REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES. 

Motion Hearing as to 175 Joint Discovery Letter Brief and 176 Joint 

Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Treatment of Documents Used at 

Deposition of Ken Bohn set for 10/2/2017 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th 

Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. Signed by 

CAND-ECF Page 24 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

106 of 120
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 9/27/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed 

on 9/27/2017) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

10/02/2017 178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim: 

Motion Hearing held on 10/2/2017 re 175 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed 

by United Energy Trading, LLC and 176 Joint Discovery Letter Brief

Regarding Treatment of Documents Used at Deposition of Ken Bohn filed by 

United Energy Trading, LLC. The Court will issue a written order. (FTR 

Time: 10:04-10:34.) 

Attorney for Plaintiff: Leah Capritta. 

Attorney for Defendants: Laurie Edelstein; Nicholas Begakis; Seth Sias. 

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/2/2017) 

(Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/02/2017 179 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS FILED ON 

SEPTEMBER 22 AND 25, 2017 by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. (mklS, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2017) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/09/2017 180 Statement re 179 Order on Discovery Letter Brief, Defendants' Proposed 

Schedule for CTA Audit Papers by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 

Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 10/9/2017) 

(Entered: 10/09/2017)

10/10/2017 181 RESPONSE to re 180 Statement Defendants' Proposed Schedule for CTA 

Audit Papers by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

10/10/2017) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/11/2017 182 ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR PRIVILEGE LOG. Signed by 

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 10/11/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) 

(Filed on 10/11/2017) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

10/19/2017 183 Discovery Letter BriefJoint Request for Extension of Time to File Discovery 

Letter Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 

10/19/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)

10/19/2017 184 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granting 183 Stipulation 

Regarding Extension of Time to File Discovery Letter Brief. (mklS, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)

10/27/2017 185 Letter from Joint Discovery Letter . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Capritta, 

Leah) (Filed on 10/27/2017) (Entered: 10/27/2017)

11/01/2017 186 *DOCUMENT FILED IN WRONG CASE. Please ignore. Refer to docket 

no. 187 .*

ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION NOTICE (docket no. 185 ). Signed 

by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 11/1/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) 

(Filed on 11/1/2017) Modified on 11/1/2017 (mklS, COURT STAFF).

Modified on 11/1/2017 (mklS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2017)

CAND-ECF Page 25 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

107 of 120
11/01/2017 187 ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION NOTICE (docket no. 185 ). Signed 

by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 11/1/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) 

(Filed on 11/1/2017) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/03/2017 188 MOTION to Dismiss filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. Motion Hearing 

set for 12/7/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before 

Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 11/17/2017. Replies due by 

11/24/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

11/3/2017) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 189 Declaration of Leah E. Capritta in Support of 188 MOTION to Dismiss filed 

byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. (Related document(s) 188 ) (Capritta, Leah) 

(Filed on 11/3/2017) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 190 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. Motion Hearing set for 

12/8/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Judge 

Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 11/17/2017. Replies due by 11/24/2017. 

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 11/3/2017) (Entered: 

11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 191 Request for Judicial Notice re 190 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 

filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert 

Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, 

# 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10

Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, 

# 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 

19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24

Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27)(Related 

document(s) 190 ) (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 11/3/2017) (Entered: 

11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 192 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 190 MOTION for Partial Summary 

Judgment , 191 Request for Judicial Notice,,, filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2

Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 

7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 

12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17

Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, 

# 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23)(Related document(s) 190 , 191 ) (Edelstein, 

Laurie) (Filed on 11/3/2017) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 193 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the Declaration of Seth 

R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed 

by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laurie Edelstein in Support of Defendants' 

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the Declaration of Seth 

R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2

Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibits, # 3 Proposed Order Granting 

Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the 

Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial 

CAND-ECF Page 26 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

108 of 120
Summary Judgment)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 11/3/2017) (Entered: 

11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by United Energy Trading, 

LLC. Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, 

San Francisco before Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 11/17/2017. 

Replies due by 11/24/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 

3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8

Exhibit F1, # 9 Exhibit F2, # 10 Exhibit F3, # 11 Exhibit F4, # 12 Exhibit G, # 

13 Exhibit G1, # 14 Exhibit H, # 15 Exhibit I, # 16 Exhibit J, # 17 Exhibit J1, # 

18 Exhibit K, # 19 Exhibit K1, # 20 Exhibit L, # 21 Exhibit M, # 22 Errata N, # 

23 Exhibit N1, # 24 Exhibit O, # 25 Exhibit P, # 26 Exhibit Q, # 27 Exhibit 

Q1, # 28 Exhibit Q2, # 29 Exhibit R)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/3/2017) 

(Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 195 Request for Judicial Notice re 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 

filed byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. (Related document(s) 194 ) (Capritta, 

Leah) (Filed on 11/3/2017) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 196 Declaration of Leah E. Capritta in Support of 194 MOTION for Partial 

Summary Judgment filed byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. (Related document

(s) 194 ) (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/3/2017) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 197 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by United Energy Trading, 

LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/3/2017) 

(Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 198 EXHIBITS re 197 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byUnited 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J2, # 2 Exhibit K2, # 3

Exhibit R1, # 4 Exhibit D1, # 5 Exhibit N2, # 6 Exhibit N3)(Related document

(s) 197 ) (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/3/2017) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/06/2017 199 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motions Hearing as to 188 MOTION to 

Dismiss , 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . Motion Hearing 

previously set for 12/7/2017 continued to 12/8/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 

3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Richard Seeborg. (This is a text-only 

entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)

(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2017) (Entered: 11/06/2017)

11/07/2017 200 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 197 Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, 

Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D1, # 2 Exhibit N3)(Related 

document(s) 197 ) (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 11/7/2017) (Entered: 

11/07/2017)

11/09/2017 201 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER re Stipulated Request to 

Extend Deadline to File Reply Briefs re 190 MOTION for Partial Summary 

Judgment, re 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Bill Chen, 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 

1 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of Stipulated Request to Extend 

Deadline to File Reply Briefs in Support of Motions for Partial Summary 

Judgment, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Stipulated Request to Extend Deadline 

CAND-ECF Page 27 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

109 of 120
to File Reply Briefs in Support of Motions for Partial Summary Judgment)

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 11/9/2017) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/17/2017 202 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of all Claims Against 

Defendant Tanisha Robinson by United Energy Trading, LLC (Capritta, Leah) 

(Filed on 11/17/2017) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 203 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 201 request to extend deadline to file 

reply briefs in support of motions for partial summary judgment. Signed 

by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/17/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

11/17/2017) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 204 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ) 

filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert 

Torres. (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 11/17/2017) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 205 Request for Judicial Notice re 204 Opposition/Response to Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha 

Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3

Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 

8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 

13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18

Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, 

# 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 

27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32

Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35)(Related 

document(s) 204 ) (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 11/17/2017) (Entered: 

11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 206 Declaration of Laurie Edelstein in Support of Defendants' Opposition to United 

Energy Trading, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed byBill 

Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5

Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10

Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, 

# 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 

19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24

Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, 

# 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 

33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38

Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 

11/17/2017) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 207 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the Declaration of Laurie 

Edelstein in Support of Defendants' Opposition to United Energy Trading, 

LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed 

Order, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibits)(Edelstein, 

Laurie) (Filed on 11/17/2017) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 208 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by United Energy Trading, 

LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C7, # 4

CAND-ECF Page 28 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

110 of 120
Exhibit G1, # 5 Exhibit H3, # 6 Exhibit N4)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

11/17/2017) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 209 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 190 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ) 

filed byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2

Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit C1, # 6 Exhibit C2, # 7

Exhibit C3, # 8 Exhibit C4, # 9 Exhibit C5, # 10 Exhibit C6, # 11 Exhibit D, # 

12 Exhibit D1, # 13 Exhibit E, # 14 Exhibit E1, # 15 Exhibit F, # 16 Exhibit G, 

# 17 Exhibit H, # 18 Exhibit H1, # 19 Exhibit H2, # 20 Exhibit I, # 21 Exhibit 

I1, # 22 Exhibit I2, # 23 Exhibit J, # 24 Exhibit K, # 25 Exhibit L, # 26 Exhibit 

L1, # 27 Exhibit L2, # 28 Exhibit L3, # 29 Exhibit L4, # 30 Exhibit N, # 31

Exhibit N1, # 32 Exhibit N2, # 33 Exhibit N3, # 34 Exhibit O, # 35 Exhibit O1, 

# 36 Exhibit P, # 37 Exhibit Q, # 38 Exhibit R, # 39 Exhibit S, # 40 Proposed 

Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/17/2017) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 210 Request for Judicial Notice re 209 Opposition/Response to Motion,,, and 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Related document(s) 209 ) (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/17/2017) (Entered: 

11/17/2017)

11/21/2017 211 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 208 Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, 

Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C7, # 2 Exhibit G1)(Related 

document(s) 208 ) (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 11/21/2017) (Entered: 

11/21/2017)

11/27/2017 212 CLERK'S NOTICE SCHEDULING A STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING. 

Status Conference set for 11/28/2017 at 10:00 AM to held telephonic before 

Judge Richard Seeborg. All parties shall appear telephonically and must 

contact Court Conference at 866/582-6878 as soon as possible. (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this 

entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2017) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/28/2017 213 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg: In 

Chambers Conference held telephonically on 11/28/2017. Trial and 

Pretrial dates and associated deadlines are vacated. Motion Hearing 

previously set for 12/8/2017 continued to 1/18/2018 at 01:30 PM in 

Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Richard Seeborg. 

Total Time in Court: 10 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported or 

recorded.

Plaintiff Attorney: Leah Capritta.

Defendant Attorney: Nicholas J. Begakis, Michael Dockterman, Laurie 

Edelstein.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/28/2017) 

Modified on 11/28/2017 (cl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 214 REPLY (re 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ) filed byUnited 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit S, # 3

Exhibit T)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 11/28/2017) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

CAND-ECF Page 29 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

111 of 120
11/28/2017 215 Request for Judicial Notice re 214 Reply to Opposition/Response In Support of 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 214 ) (Capritta, Leah) 

(Filed on 11/28/2017) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 216 REPLY (re 190 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ) filed byBill Chen, 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Edelstein, 

Laurie) (Filed on 11/28/2017) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 217 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 190 MOTION for Partial Summary 

Judgment , 216 Reply to Opposition/Response filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas 

& Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, 

# 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7

Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12

Exhibit 12)(Related document(s) 190 , 216 ) (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 

11/28/2017) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 218 Request for Judicial Notice re 216 Reply to Opposition/Response, 190

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed byBill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2

Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 216 , 190 ) (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 

11/28/2017) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 219 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the Supplemental 

Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration 

Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion 

for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits to the Supplemental Declaration of Seth 

R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order 

Granting Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the 

Supplemental Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Reply 

Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment)(Edelstein, Laurie) 

(Filed on 11/28/2017) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

12/05/2017 220 OBJECTIONS to re 214 Reply to Opposition/Response Defendants' Objection 

to Reply Evidence by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Albert Torres. 

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 12/5/2017) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

01/18/2018 221 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg: Motion 

Hearing held on 1/18/2018 re 190 MOTION for Partial Summary 

Judgment, 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Matters taken 

under submission; Court to issue an order. Total Time in Court: 1 hour 15 

minutes. Court Reporter: Kathy Wyatt.

Plaintiff Attorney: Leah Capritta, Thomas Leland.

Defendant Attorney: Laurie Edelstein, Seth Sias.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

CAND-ECF Page 30 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

112 of 120
associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/18/2018) 

(Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/22/2018 222 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting in part and denying in part 

190 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 194 Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2018) 

(Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018 223 CLERK'S NOTICE SCHEDULING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/15/2018 

10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor. Case Management 

Statement due by 3/8/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. 

There is no document associated with this entry.) (rslc2, COURT STAFF) 

(Filed on 1/22/2018) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018 222 ORDER Granting Motion to File Under Seal, Motions terminated: 207

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the Declaration of 

Laurie Edelstein in Support of Defendants' Opposition to United Energy 

Trading, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Tanisha 

Robinson, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Albert Torres, Bill Chen, 193

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the Declaration of 

Seth R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment filed by Tanisha Robinson, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Albert 

Torres, Bill Chen, 197 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by 

United Energy Trading, LLC, 208 Administrative Motion to File Under 

Seal filed by United Energy Trading, LLC, 219 Administrative Motion to 

File Under Seal Exhibits to the Supplemental Declaration of Seth R. Sias in 

Support of Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment filed by Tanisha Robinson, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 

Albert Torres, Bill Chen. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/22/18. (cl, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2018) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/29/2018 224 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendants filed by Bill Chen, Pacific 

Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. Responses due by 

2/12/2018. Replies due by 2/20/2018. (Barba, Arnold) (Filed on 1/29/2018) 

(Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 225 Proposed Order re 224 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendants by 

Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. 

(Barba, Arnold) (Filed on 1/29/2018) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 226 Proposed Order re 224 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendants

(Corrected Proposed Order) by Bill Chen, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha 

Robinson, Albert Torres. (Barba, Arnold) (Filed on 1/29/2018) (Entered: 

01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 227 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 224 Motion to Withdraw as 

Attorney.. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2018) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 228 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 01/18/2018 before Judge 

Richard Seeborg by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., for Court Reporter Katherine 

Wyatt. (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 1/29/2018) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

CAND-ECF Page 31 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

113 of 120
01/30/2018 229 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 01/18/2018 before Judge 

Richard Seeborg by United Energy Trading, LLC, for Court Reporter 

Katherine Wyatt. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 1/30/2018) (Entered: 01/30/2018)

02/08/2018 230 Transcript of Proceedings held on 1-18-18, before Judge Richard Seeborg. 

Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathy Wyatt, telephone number 925-212-5224. Per 

General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be 

viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through 

the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript 

Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of 

Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days 

from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2018. 

(kpw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2018) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

03/01/2018 231 NOTICE by Bill Chen, Albert Torres Request for Entry of Judgment

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018 232 NOTICE by Bill Chen, Albert Torres [Proposed] Judgment in Favor of 

Defendants Albert Torres and William Chen and Against United Energy 

Trading, LLC (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018 233 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal PG&E's Motion to Exclude Opinions 

of Plaintiff UET's Expert Dr. Jesse David and Exhibits to the Supporting 

Declaration of Seth R. Sias filed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.. (Attachments: 

# 1 Declaration Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of Defendants' 

Administrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits to the 

Supplemental Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of Defendants' Reply 

Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Proposed Order 

Proposed Order Granting PG&E's Administrative Motion for Leave to File 

Under Seal PG&E's Motion to Exclude Opinions of UET's Expert Dr. Jesse 

David and Exhibits to the Supporting Declaration of Seth R. Sias, # 3 Exhibit 

Unredacted Version of Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 

B)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018 234 MOTION Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC's Expert 

Dr. Jesse David filed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.. Motion Hearing set for 

4/5/2018 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge 

Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 3/15/2018. Replies due by 3/22/2018. 

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company's Motion to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff United Energy Trading, 

LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David, # 2 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 

Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion to Exclude Opinions of 

Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David, # 3 Exhibit 1, 

# 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9

Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14

Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16)

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/02/2018 235 JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ALBERT TORRES AND 

WILLIAM CHEN AND AGAINST UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC. 

Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/2/18. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed 

on 3/2/2018) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

CAND-ECF Page 32 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

114 of 120
03/02/2018 236 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing as to 234 MOTION Exclude 

Opinions of Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David . 

Motion Hearing previously set for 4/5/2018 continued to 4/26/2018 at 01:30 

PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. 

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2018) (Entered: 

03/02/2018)

03/08/2018 237 MOTION to Appear by Telephone PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO 

APPEAR BY TELEPHONE AT FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1

Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 238 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.. 

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/09/2018 239 CLERK'S NOTICE. The Case Management Conference set for 3/15/2018 will 

be held at 11:00 AM. All parties shall appear telephonically and must contact 

Court Call at (866) 582-6878 as soon as possible to arrange their participation. 

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (rslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2018) 

(Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/12/2018 240 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 234 MOTION Exclude 

Opinions of Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David 

filed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order 

Granting Stipulation Setting Briefing Schedule and Requesting New Hearing 

Date for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Daubert Motion, # 2 Declaration 

of Seth R. Sias in Support of Stipulation Setting Briefing Schedule and 

Requesting New Hearing Date for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Daubert 

Motion)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 3/12/2018) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/15/2018 241 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg:

Further Case Management Conference held telephonically on 

3/15/2018.Total Time in Court: 10 minutes. Not Reported or Recorded.

Plaintiff Attorney: Leah Capritta - Telephonic.

Defendant Attorney: Laurie Edelstein, Seth Sias - Telephonic. 

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/15/2018) 

Modified on 3/15/2018 (cl, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/15/2018 (cl, 

COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2018)

04/12/2018 242 STIPULATION Setting Briefing Schedule and Requesting Hearing Date for 

Daubert Motions filed by Vista Energy Marketing, LP. (Capritta, Leah) (Filed 

on 4/12/2018) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

04/13/2018 243 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER, ORDER 

REFERRING CASE to Private ADR. Further Case Management 

Conference set for 10/25/2018 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 

03, 17th Floor. Jury Selection/Trial set for 3/11/2019 at 09:00 AM in San 

CAND-ECF Page 33 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

115 of 120
Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. 

Daubert Motions Hearing set for 10/5/2018 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, 

Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Pretrial

Conference set for 2/27/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 

03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard 

Seeborg on 4/13/18. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2018) Modified on 

4/13/2018 (cl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/13/2018 244 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing as to 234 MOTION Exclude 

Opinions of Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David . 

Motion Hearing previously set for 4/26/2018 continued to 10/5/2018 at 01:30 

PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. 

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2018) 

(Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/13/2018 245 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING THE TIME ON MOTION HEARING as to 

234 MOTION Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC's 

Expert Dr. Jesse David . Motion Hearing set for 10/5/2018 at 10:00 AM in San 

Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. (This is a 

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with 

this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2018) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/19/2018 246 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by United Energy Trading, 

LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted 

Version of Opposition, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit 

D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Unredacted Version of 

Opposition, # 12 Exhibit A, # 13 Exhibit B, # 14 Exhibit C, # 15 Exhibit D, # 

16 Exhibit E, # 17 Exhibit F, # 18 Exhibit G)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 

4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

04/19/2018 247 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 234 MOTION Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff 

United Energy Trading, LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David ) filed byUnited Energy 

Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4

Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Declaration of Leah 

E. Capritta, # 9 Proposed Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 

04/19/2018)

05/10/2018 248 REPLY (re 234 MOTION Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff United Energy 

Trading, LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David ) filed byPacific Gas & Electric Co.. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration Reply Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 

Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion to Exclude Opinions of 

Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David, # 2 Exhibit 1, 

# 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 5/10/2018) (Entered: 

05/10/2018)

05/10/2018 249 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 

Defendant's Administrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude Opinions of 

Plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David and Exhibits to 

the Reply Declaration of Seth R. Sias, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4

CAND-ECF Page 34 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

116 of 120
Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Administrative Motion 

to Leave to File Under Seal Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Reply in 

Support of Its Motion to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff United Energy Trading, 

LLC's Expert Dr. Jesse David and Exhibits to the Reply Declaration of Seth R. 

Sias)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 5/10/2018) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

07/02/2018 250 MOTION to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Experts Daniel Ray and 

Michael Quinn filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 

10/5/2018 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge 

Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 8/20/2018. Replies due by 9/10/2018. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5

Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10

Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15

Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20

Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit T, # 22 Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit V, # 24 Proposed 

Order)(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 7/2/2018) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 251 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by United Energy Trading, 

LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit 

C, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10

Exhibit L, # 11 Exhibit M, # 12 Exhibit P, # 13 Exhibit Q, # 14 Exhibit R, # 15

Exhibit S, # 16 Exhibit T, # 17 Exhibit U, # 18 Proposed Order)(Capritta, 

Leah) (Filed on 7/2/2018) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 252 NOTICE by United Energy Trading, LLC re 250 MOTION to Exclude or 

Limit the Testimony of Experts Daniel Ray and Michael Quinn (Capritta, 

Leah) (Filed on 7/2/2018) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/06/2018 253 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 251 Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal filed byPacific Gas & Electric Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P)

(Related document(s) 251 ) (Sias, Seth) (Filed on 7/6/2018) (Entered: 

07/06/2018)

08/20/2018 254 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 250 MOTION to Exclude or Limit the 

Testimony of Experts Daniel Ray and Michael Quinn ) filed byPacific Gas & 

Electric Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 

Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Opposition to United Energy 

Trading, LLC's Motion Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 to Exclude or Limit the 

Testimony of Experts Daniel Ray and Michael Quinn, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3

Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 

7, # 9 Exhibit 8)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 8/20/2018) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 255 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.. 

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company's Administrative Motion to Seal Exhibits to Declaration of 

Seth R. Sias in Support of PG&E's Opposition to United Energy Trading, 

LLC's Motion Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of 

Experts Daniel Ray and Michael Quinn, # 2 Exhibit Unredacted Version of 

Exhibits, # 3 Proposed Order)(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 8/20/2018) 

(Entered: 08/20/2018)

09/10/2018 256

CAND-ECF Page 35 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

117 of 120
REPLY (re 250 MOTION to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Experts 

Daniel Ray and Michael Quinn ) filed byUnited Energy Trading, LLC. 

(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 9/10/2018) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

10/05/2018 257 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg: Motion 

Hearing held on 10/5/2018. Total Time in Court: 25 minutes. Court 

Reporter: Debra Pas.

Plaintiff Attorney: Thomas Leland, Leah Capritta, Ken Thomson.

Defendant Attorney: Laurie Edelstein, Seth Silas.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (clS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/5/2018) 

(Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/16/2018 258 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 234 Motion ; denying 250

Motion to Exclude. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2018) (Entered: 

10/16/2018)

10/18/2018 259 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.. 

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 10/18/2018) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/22/2018 260 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at Further Case Management Conference

filed by United Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)

(Capritta, Leah) (Filed on 10/22/2018) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 261 CLERK'S NOTICE The Case Management Conference set for October 25, 

2018 will be held at 11:00 AM. All parties shall appear telephonically and must 

contact Court Call at (866) 582-6878 no later than 12:00 P.M. tomorrow, 

October 23, 2018, to arrange their participation. (This is a text-only entry 

generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)

(rslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2018) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/25/2018 262 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg:

Further Case Management Conference held telephonically on 10/25/2018. 

Total Time in Court: 10 minutes. Not Reported or Recorded.

Plaintiff Attorney: Leah Capritta - Telephonic 

Defendant Attorney: Laurie Edelstein - Telephonic. 

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/25/2018) 

(Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/25/2018 263 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Signed

by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/25/18. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 

10/25/2018) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

11/01/2018 264 Proposed Order re 258 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Sealing 

Documents Filed in Connection with Daubert Motions by Bill Chen, Pacific 

Gas & Electric Co., Tanisha Robinson, Albert Torres. (Sias, Seth) (Filed on 

11/1/2018) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

CAND-ECF Page 36 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

118 of 120
11/01/2018 265 Declaration of Seth R. Sias in Support of 264 Proposed Order Sealing

Documents Filed in Connection with Daubert Motions filed byPacific Gas & 

Electric Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 

264 ) (Sias, Seth) (Filed on 11/1/2018) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

11/01/2018 266 Declaration of Leah Capritta in Support of 264 Proposed Order filed byUnited 

Energy Trading, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 

3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9

Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 

14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Related document(s) 264 ) (Capritta, Leah) 

(Filed on 11/1/2018) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

11/08/2018 267 NOTICE of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order by 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. A Settlement Conference is set for 

11/26/2018 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom E, 15th Floor. (shyS, 

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2018) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/15/2018 268 ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg Sealing Documents filed in connection 

with Daubert Motions granting 233 Administrative Motion to File Under 

Seal; granting 246 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 249

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 251 Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal; granting 255 Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2018) (Entered: 

11/15/2018)

11/27/2018 269 Minute Entry for settlement conference held on 11/27/2018 before 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. Case did not settle, however, 

settlement discussions are ongoing. The parties shall exchange information 

and meet and confer as agreed at the settlement conference. On or before 

12/14/2018, the parties shall update Magistrate Judge Laporte by joint 

and/or separate letters emailed to edlcrd@cand.uscourts.gov. FTR Time: 

Not Recorded. Plaintiff Attorney: Leah Capritta. Defendant Attorney: 

Seth Sias and Laurie Edelstein. (This is a text-only entry generated by the 

court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (shyS, COURT 

STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/27/2018) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

02/04/2019 270 NOTICE by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. of Bankruptcy Proceeding (Edelstein, 

Laurie) (Filed on 2/4/2019) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/05/2019 271 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ON 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 AND JURY TRIAL SET FOR MARCH 11, 2019. 

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document 

associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2019) (Entered: 

02/05/2019)

08/19/2019 272 NOTICE of Change of Address by Laurie Edelstein and Seth R. Sias

(Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 8/19/2019) (Entered: 08/19/2019)

10/08/2019 273 NOTICE by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. of Withdrawal of Seth R. Sias as 

Counsel (Edelstein, Laurie) (Filed on 10/8/2019) (Entered: 10/08/2019)

CAND-ECF Page 37 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

119 of 120
PACER Service Center 

Transaction Receipt 

10/15/2019 11:57:58

PACER 

Login: Lorilabash:4671371:4538280 Client Code: 888060.00001 

Description: Docket Report Search 

Criteria: 

3:15-cv02383-RS 

Billable 

Pages: 30 Cost: 3.00 

CAND-ECF Page 38 of 38

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?850272856995094-L_1_0-1 10/15/2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323-4 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page

120 of 120