Opinion
Case No. 01-30923 DM
October 15, 2003
Grant Kolling, CITY OF PALO ALTO, Palo Alto, CA, for The City of Palo Alto
G. Larry Engel, James Hoover, MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP, San Francisco, CA, Special Counsel to The City of Palo Alto
Elaine M. Seid, McPHARLIN, SPRINKLES, THOMAS LLP, San Jose, CA, for The City of Santa Clara
R. Dale Ginter, Dan L. Carroll, DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR ROHWER LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Merced Irrigation District
Thomas E, Lauria, Jerry R. Bloom, Frank L, Eaton, WHITE CASE LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, Mirant Delta LLC and Mirant Potrero LLC
Peter C. Haley, Hillary C. Agnost, NIELSEN HALEY ABBOTT LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Creditor Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
Dennis J. Herrera, Theresa Mueller, D. Cameron Baker, San Francisco, CA, for City and County of San Francisco
Patricia S. Mar, MORRISON FOERSTER, San Francisco, CA, for Creditor Avista Energy, Inc.
G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Creditor Travelers Casualty Surety Company
Peter D. Keisler, Asst Attorney General, J. Christopher Kohn, Brendan Collins, Matthew J. Troy, Washington, D.C., for Bonneville and Western Area Power Administrations
Kevin V. Ryan, United States Attorney, Douglas Chang, Asst. US Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Bonneville and Western Area Power Administrations
Mark I. Bane, Eric R, Wilson, KELLEY DRYE WARREN LLP, New York, N.Y.
Peter S. Munoz, Katherine W. Wittenberg, REED SMITH CROSBY HEAFEY LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Placer County Water Agency, Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, Yuba County Water Agency, Nevada Irrigation District, Solano Irrigation District, and Tuolumne Utilities District
Richard Roos-Collins, NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE, Berkeley, CA, for California Hydropower Reform Coalition
Charlton H. Bonham, TROUT UNLIMITED, Albany, CA, for California Hydropower Reform Coalition
Alan Z. Yudkowsky, Peter K Jazayer, Amy H. Perlis, STROOCK STROOCK LAVAN LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Party-In-Interest Sempra Energy Trading Corporation
Philip S. Warden, Michael P. Ellis, PILLSBURY WINTHROP LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Creditors, Dynegy Marketing and Trade, Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., Dynegy Canada Marketing and Trade, a Division of Dynegy Canada Inc. El Segundo Power LLC, Long Beach Generation LLC, Cabrillo Power I LLC, Cabrillo Power II LLC, and West Coast Power LLC
Steven M. Abramowitz, VINSON ELKINS L.L.P., New York, NY, for Transalta Energy Marketing (California) Inc.
Craig M. Prim, Cheryl Jordan, MURRAY MURRAY, Cupertino, CA, for Transalta Energy Marketing (California) Inc.
Marc S. Cohen, Steven F. Werth, KAY SCHOLER LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Special Counsel to the Reorganized California Power Exchange Corporation
James Lindholm, Jr., Stacy Million, OFFICE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COUNSEL, San Luis Obispo, CA, for the City and County of San Luis Obispo
Roger Crane, NIXON PEABODY, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the City and County of San Luis Obispo
Steven J. Stanwyck, THE STANWYCK FIRM, APC, Santa Monica, CA, for Baldwin Associates Inc.
Howard J. Weg, David B. Shemano, PEITZMAN, GLASSMAN, WEG KEMPINSKY LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Powerex Corp. and Portland General Electric Company
Andrew P. Denatale, WHITE CASE, New York, NY, for KBC Bank N.V.
John P. Kern, PERKINS COE LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Martha E. Romero, LAW OFFICES OF MARTHA E, ROMERO AND ASSOCIATES, Whittier, CA, for Various California Counties Taxing Authorities
BNY Western Trust Company, Attn: Mr. Todd Duncan, Los Angeles, CA, Vice President of BNY Western Trust Company
Evan C. Hollander, White Case LLP, New York, NY, for BNY Western Trust Company
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY AND TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER RE THE PG E/OCC PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY PROTOCOL AND TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Based on the matters discussed on the record at the status conferences in this matter on September 8 and October 8, 2003, and the arguments of counsel at those conferences, the Court hereby supplements its Discovery and Trial Scheduling Order re the PG E/OCC Plan of Reorganization dated August 8, 2003, as set forth below. Should there be any conflict between this order (the "Supplemental Discovery and Trial Scheduling Order") and the prior order, the terms of this order shall prevail. All capitalized terms in this order shall have the same meaning as in the August 8, 2003 order.
1. CHIEF JUDGE JELLEN . Judge Montali will not be available from October 23, 2003, to November 7, 2003. During that period, Chief Judge Jellen will be available to hear all discovery disputes and any other emergency matters arising from this case. Counsel shall coordinate the scheduling of all such matters with Judge Jellen's chambers.
2. TRIAL BRIEFS . Proponents' shall file and serve their respective trial briefs in support of their case-in-chief on or before October 22, 2003. Objectors shall file and serve their respective trial briefs on or before November 3, 2003. 3. FINDINGS or FACT . Proponents shall designate in their proposed findings of fact (to be filed no later than October 22, 2003) any testimony or other evidence admitted in the confirmation hearings on the competing PG E and CPUC Plans upon which Proponents are relying to establish the proposed finding. Similarly, Objectors shall designate in their proposed findings of fact (to be filed no later than November 3, 2003) any testimony or other evidence admitted in the confirmation hearings on the competing PG E and CPUC Plans upon which Objectors are relying to establish the proposed finding. To the extent any such testimony or documents were admitted in evidence in these earner proceedings, they shall be deemed admitted in these proceedings as well; however, any party may object to the admission of such evidence. Finally, to the extent that Proponents or Objectors are relying on testimony provided in the earlier proceedings, opposing parties shall have the right to recall the witness providing such testimony upon a showing of good cause.
4. SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS . Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or before September 26, 2003. Opposition briefs shall be filed on or before October 8, 2003, and reply briefs shall be filed on or before October 14, 2003. A hearing on any such motions shall be heard October 16, 2003, at 1:30 p.m.
5. TRIAL SCHEDULE .
a. The Court will not hear opening arguments in the confirmation hearing on the PG E/OCC Plan.
b. Proponents shall disclose to Objectors on or before November 5, 2003, the identity of the first three witnesses they intend to call in their case-in-chief. Thereafter, Proponents shall inform Objectors of the identity of the witnesses they intend to call (and the order those witnesses will appear) at least three calendar days prior to the expected date the individual witnesses are to be called. Similarly, Objectors shall inform Proponents of the identity of the witnesses they intend to call (and the order those witnesses will appear) at least three calendar days prior to the expected date the individual witnesses are to be called.
c. Unless the Court otherwise indicates, trial will start promptly each trial day at 9:30 a.m. It is anticipated that the court will take a one hour lunch break each day at approximately 12:30 p.m., It is also anticipated that each trial day will continue until approximately 4:30 p.m, although the proceedings may continue beyond that time as the Court deems appropriate.
d. The following days will, if necessary, be used as trial days:
November: 10, 12, 13 14 (a.m. only)
17 and 18
24, 25 and 26 (a.m. only)
December: 1, 2 3
8, 9, 10 11
15, 16, 17 18
The fact that the Court is holding these dates in no way implies that the Court believes that all of the dates will be necessary to conclude the trial. Further, counsel for the City of Palo Alto has indicated that he will be unavailable for trial for approximately two hours during the afternoon of November 18. The Court intends to provide reasonable accommodations for the schedule of Palo Alto's counsel on that date. Counsel for State Entities requested that the PG E Proponents accommodate his absence on November 14, 2003 and reserved the right to request the Court make reasonable adjustments to the schedule on that date if the parties cannot agree to such accommodations.