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

 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Theodore E. Tsekerides (pro hac vice) 

(theodore.tsekerides@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com) 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Peter J. Benvenutti (#60566) 

(pbenvenutti@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

DEBTORS’ OBJECTION TO THE EX 

PARTE MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

PURSUANT TO B.L.R. 9006-1 

REQUESTING ORDER SHORTENING 

TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO 

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PG&E 

BUSINESS PLANS

Related to Dkt. Nos. 3624 and 3625 

Debtors. 

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3656 Filed: 08/22/19 Entered: 08/22/19 12:11:51 Page 1 of

6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.”) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility”), 

as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”) in the above-captioned chapter 11 

cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”), hereby submit this objection (“Objection”) to the Ex Parte Motion 

of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”) Pursuant to B.L.R. 9006-1 Requesting 

Order Shortening Time for Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of PG&E Business Plans, Dkt. 

No. 3624 (the “Motion to Shorten”). 

On August 20, 2019, the TCC filed the Motion of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants to 

Compel Production of PG&E Business Plans, Dkt. No. 3624 (the “Motion to Compel”).1 On that 

same date, the TCC filed its Motion to Shorten, seeking to have its Motion to Compel heard on 

August 27, 2019, i.e., on seven days’ notice, instead of the 28 days’ notice required by Bankruptcy 

Local Rule (“Local Rule”) 9014-1(c)(1).2 Seeking expedited review of its motions on baseless 

grounds of urgency has unfortunately become the TCC’s modus operandi.3

As an initial matter, the Motion to Shorten is procedurally deficient because it is not 

accompanied by a declaration supporting the basis for expedited review, as required by Local Rule 

9006-1(c), and because the TCC did not contact the Debtors regarding the relief requested in their 

Motion to Shorten prior to filing, as required by Local Rule 9006-1(c)(4).4 The Court should deny 

the Motion to Shorten on this basis alone. 

If the Court nevertheless considers the Motion to Shorten, it should deny it because the TCC 

 

1

 The TCC failed to meet-and-confer with the Debtors or schedule a conference call with the Court 

prior to filing their Motion to Compel, in violation of the Second Amended Order Implementing 

Certain Notice and Case Management Procedures, Dkt. No. 1996 (the “CMO”), ¶ 38. 

2

 The TCC states that Local Rule 9014-1(c)(2) governs the notice requirements applicable to their 

Motion to Compel. See Motion to Shorten at 2. This is incorrect. Local Rule 9014-1(c)(1) 

controls where, as here, the “relief is sought against an identified, named entity.” 

3

 The Motion to Shorten is the TCC’s second attempt in the past two weeks to reduce the Debtors’ 

allotted time to respond to a motion to 7 days or less, despite no valid reason for doing so. See Dkt 

Nos. 3481 and 3497. This practice unnecessarily drains the resources of the Debtors’ estates. 

4

 See also CMO ¶ 23 (“A movant seeking emergency or expedited relief shall comply with B.L.R. 

9006-1(c). Counsel for the movant must make a good faith effort to confer with the party against 

whom the relief is sought . . . and file a declaration providing the information required by B.L.R. 

9006-1(c).”). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3656 Filed: 08/22/19 Entered: 08/22/19 12:11:51 Page 2 of

6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

provides no justification for the requested highly expedited timeframe. Indeed, other than 

generalized comments regarding the reorganization timeline proposed by the Debtors, there is 

nothing in the Motion to Shorten that even hints as to why the standard timing set forth in the Local 

Rules would not be more than sufficient to address whatever purported dispute the TCC has 

manufactured. Moreover, even if the Court were to consider an August 27, 2019 hearing on the 

Motion to Compel, the Court cannot compel production of what does not yet exist, as the Debtors’ 

business plan is not likely to be finalized by that date—a fact as to which the TCC’s advisors had 

been made aware. As the Debtors’ advisors have made plain repeatedly, the Debtors will produce 

their business plan as soon as it is ready, and it will be available for review well in advance of any 

voting on the Debtors’ plan of reorganization. 

Ignoring its meet and confer obligations, the TCC has instead chosen to misrepresent the 

facts in another misguided effort to justify an expedited hearing. The TCC states that “PG&E 

informed the TCC’s financial advisors that the Business Plans will be produced around August 26, 

2019,” and that the TCC thus needs to shorten time and have a hearing on its Motion to Compel on 

August 27, 2019, “in the event PG&E fails to produce the documents by that date.” Motion to 

Compel at 3. The TCC’s assertions in this regard, for which the TCC tellingly submits no 

supporting declaration, are patently false. 

In recent weeks, John Boken, a Managing Director at the Debtors’ advisor AlixPartners and 

the Debtors’ Deputy Chief Restructuring Officer, has been in discussions or communications with 

the advisors to various constituencies and parties-in-interest to these Chapter 11 Cases, including the 

advisors to the TCC, regarding the status of the development of the Debtors’ business plan and 

potential timing for release of that business plan. See Declaration of John Boken in support of 

Debtors’ Objection, dated Aug. 22, 2019 (“Boken Declaration”), ¶ 4. Mr. Boken has been careful 

in all of those communications to ensure that the various advisors understood that the Debtors’ 

timeline for completion of the Debtors’ business plan is fluid, to allow for the flexibility necessary to 

ensure appropriate internal analysis and diligence, management review, and governance processes. 

See id. At no time has Mr. Boken ever stated or in any way represented to the TCC’s advisors, or to 

any other party, that the Debtors would, with certainty, finalize or release their business plan by 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3656 Filed: 08/22/19 Entered: 08/22/19 12:11:51 Page 3 of

6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

August 26, 2019, or by any date certain. See id.5

Rather, on August 16, 2019, Mr. Boken informed the advisors of numerous interested parties, 

including the TCC, that the Debtors’ Board of Directors and certain of its committees (collectively, 

the “Board”) would be reviewing the Debtors’ business plan during the week of August 19, 2019. 

See id. ¶ 5. Mr. Boken further stated that, in the event the Board approved the Debtors’ business 

plan that week, the Debtors could potentially schedule a roll-out session of their business plan for all 

appropriate constituency advisors during the week of August 26, 2019. See id. Mr. Boken noted, 

however, that if upon their review of the Debtors’ business plan, the Board had follow-up items for 

the Debtors or the advisors to address, the Debtors likely would not be in a position to produce their 

business plan until after September 2, 2019. See id. The Board has not yet approved the Debtors’ 

business plan, and no roll-out session has been scheduled. See id. ¶ 7. Mr. Boken’s clear 

representations to the TCC’s advisors that the Debtors will provide the TCC with the Debtors’ 

business plan promptly after it is finalized, but that such production may not occur until after 

September 2, 2019, render the Motion to Shorten (and the Motion to Compel) a wholly unnecessary 

endeavor.

Moreover, the TCC has set forth no justification as to why it is so critical that they receive 

the Debtors’ business plan by August 27, 2019. The TCC asserts that the Debtors’ business plan is 

“directly relevant to the Estimation Procedures and PG&E’s Reorganization Timeline,” and that “the 

present urgency of those matters and the accelerated pace of the case justify shortening time for the 

[Motion to Compel].” Motion to Shorten at 3. These assertions ring hollow and would not support 

an expedited hearing on the Motion to Compel even if the Debtors were able to finalize their 

business plan by August 27, 2019, which is unlikely, and the Debtors then refused to produce it 

promptly, which they will not. There is absolutely no reason that the TCC needs the Debtors’ 

business plan prior to the August 27, 2019 hearing on Estimation Procedures, as that hearing relates 

 

5

 Mr. Boken further communicated to the TCC’s advisors that, to the best of his knowledge, no 

advisors, creditor constituencies, current parties-in-interest, or potential investors have been 

provided with or have access to any business plan or financial forecast information relating to the 

Debtors other than such historical forecast information that is, or has otherwise been, publicly 

available. See Boken Decl. ¶ 6.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3656 Filed: 08/22/19 Entered: 08/22/19 12:11:51 Page 4 of

6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

entirely and exclusively to the process of estimating the Debtors’ liability for the 2017 and 2018 

wildfires, a process on which the Debtors’ business plan has no bearing. The Debtors’ filing of their 

Reorganization Timeline similarly does not create any urgent need for the TCC to review the 

Debtors’ business plan. The TCC will have more than sufficient time to review the Debtors’ 

business plan and seek other discovery regarding the Debtors plan of reorganization as necessary and 

in the normal course. Finally, the Court should reject the TCC’s argument that the “accelerated 

pace” of these Chapter 11 Cases somehow justifies the need for an expedited hearing on their 

Motion to Compel, as accepting such reasoning would only encourage the TCC’s continued attempts 

to shorten the Debtors’ time to respond to motions where there is no need for such relief.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court should deny the Motion to Shorten and set the 

hearing on the Motion to Compel for September 24, 2019, the first regularly scheduled omnibus 

hearing date at least 28 days from its filing, pursuant to Local Rule 9014-1(c)(1). 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3656 Filed: 08/22/19 Entered: 08/22/19 12:11:51 Page 5 of

6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

 Dated: August 22, 2019 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

By: /s/ Theodore E. Tsekerides 

 Theodore E. Tsekerides 

Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3656 Filed: 08/22/19 Entered: 08/22/19 12:11:51 Page 6 of

6