1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company 

☒ Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in 

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

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered

Date: October 7, 2019

Time: 10:00 AM

Place: Courtroom 17

 450 Golden Gate Ave.

 16th Floor

 San Francisco, CA

ORDER GRANTING FEE EXAMINER’S MOTION TO APPROVE FEE PROCEDURES

On May 28, 2019, this court entered an order appointing 

Bruce A. Markell as the Fee Examiner in these chapter 11 cases. 

In accordance with that order, the Fee Examiner filed a Notice 

of Terms of Protocol Regarding Submission of Fee Applications on 

August 30, 2019 (“Protocol”) (dkt. 3762). On September 19, 

2019, the Fee Examiner filed the underlying Motion to Approve 

Signed and Filed: November 15, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

November 15, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4770 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:51:20 Page 1 of

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

-2-

Fee Procedures (“Fee Procedures Motion”) (dkt. 3950) seeking 

court approval of procedures set forth in the Protocol. Nine 

law firms filed a joint response (dkt. 4064) and Milbank LLP 

(dkt. 4050) filed a separate response opposing several material 

terms of the Protocol and the Fee Procedures Motion. The United 

States Trustee (“UST”) filed a response (dkt. 4025) largely 

supporting the Fee Procedures Motion, which The Utility Reform 

Network (dkt. 4475) joined.

After issuing a tentative ruling on October 6, 2019, the 

court held a hearing on the Fee Procedures Motion in support of 

the Fee Examiner’s motion to approve fee procedures (dkt. 3950) 

the following day. The court encouraged the Fee Examiner and 

those parties responding to the Protocol and Fee Procedures 

Motion to meet and confer to attempt to resolve their disputes 

as to the terms of proposed Protocol. 

On October 24, 2019, the Fee Examiner filed a reply (dkt. 

4475) indicating that the parties had negotiated the terms of a 

revised protocol, thereby addressing all issues except the 

ability of professionals to bill for non-working travel. On the 

same date, Debtors filed a copy of the Revised Protocol and a 

red-lined version of the Revised Protocol (dkt. 4473). Section 

5.1.8 (Travel Billing) provides two alternates: 

Alternate Provision 1: Non-working travel time is 

compensable at 50% of the Biller's standard hourly rate.

Alternate Provision 2: Non-working travel time is 

compensable as provided in the existing Local Guidelines 

and Court Guidelines. 

(Dkt. 4473-1 at ECF pg. 10). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4770 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:51:20 Page 2 of

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

-3-

The court’s position on nonworking travel time has been 

published and in place for over eighteen years. Consistency and 

predictability are important and will not be disturbed absent 

good reason. All employed professionals took on their 

assignments in these cases with knowledge or at least notice of 

the court’s requirements in this area. None sought relief at 

the outset of their employment. Those who chose to adopt a 50% 

non-working travel time protocol did so at their own risk. 

“Better to ask forgiveness than permission” will not carry the 

day. The Court will not deviate from its existing Practices & 

Procedures, and will allow only two hours to be billed for nonworking airplane travel time. See PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES IN 

JUDGE MONTALI’S COURT (July 2018) at III(I), page 12 (available 

at http://www.canb.uscourts.gov/procedure/montali/judgemontalis-practices-and-procedures). 

In light of the foregoing, and good cause appearing 

therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Fee Examiner's Motion to set Fee Procedures is 

granted as provided herein.

2. As to any currently pending interim fee application 

(defined as any interim fee application filed before 

November 15, 2019):

a. Only the Fee Examiner shall have authority to set 

a hearing date, and such dates shall be set under 

the provisions of Paragraph 9 of the Order 

Appointing Fee Examiner, i.e., after a final 

report, in coordination with Debtors’ counsel, 

and grouped to advance judicial economy.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4770 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:51:20 Page 3 of

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

-4-

b. If a fee applicant and the Fee Examiner have 

reached a compromise, a hearing should be set on 

the same basis and be coordinated with other fee 

hearings, so that hearings are grouped to advance 

judicial economy.

3. As to future cycles of interim fee applications, the 

following procedures shall be implemented;

a. Interim fee applications shall be considered 

every four months, as provided for in the Order 

[Establishing] Procedures for Interim 

Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of 

Professionals entered on February 28, 2019 (dkt. 

701). The next deadline to file an interim fee 

application shall be March 15, 2020, and future 

interim applications may be filed at four-month 

intervals. If an interim fee application is 

filed after the deadline, it will be deemed filed 

at the next interval. Each application will 

cover fees and expenses incurred through the end 

of the second full month preceding the deadline. 

b. In the discretion of the Fee Examiner, the 

hearing dates on the interim applications will be 

grouped into three blocks as follows:

i. The "core" debtors' counsel and committee 

counsel (Keller Benvenutti, Weil Gotshal, 

Cravath, Milbank, and Baker Hostetler);

ii. Debtors' other legal counsel subject to fee 

examination; and

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4770 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:51:20 Page 4 of

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

-5-

iii. Non-legal professionals.

4. The Fee Examiner will determine when each block is set 

for hearing, attempting to do so in a manner 

respecting judicial economy and the efficient use of 

Fee Applicants’ time. The Fee Examiner may set each 

block on a different day. The goal is to group 

applications such that duplication of effort can be 

more easily detected (if it exists), and to also 

spread out the work of the Fee Examiner and his 

limited staff.

5. Any Revised Protocol agreed to by the parties should 

provide "Non-working travel time is compensable as 

provided in the existing Local Rules and Court 

Guidelines."

**END OF ORDER**

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4770 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:51:20 Page 5 of

5