San Francisco Herring Association et al v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company et al

Filing 79

ORDER RE DISCOVERY re 75 Statement. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/2/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

Case No. 14-cv-04393-WHO
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 75
10
11

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

The parties’ Joint Discovery Statement revisits issues argued in various ways since June:

15

how much discovery is necessary to try the Known Clarke Property Claims? Defendant Pacific

16

Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) has the correct approach. Dkt. No. 75 at 3-4. Discovery is

17

limited to what is relevant to the North Beach MGP. PG&E must produce programmatic

18

documents that affect the North Beach MGP, regardless of whether the documents also affect

19

other parts of San Francisco, and individual remediation documents in the North Beach MGP.

20

Plaintiff Dan Clarke also seeks documents concerning how homeowners have been

21

compensated in lieu of remediation. He claims that this information is necessary to perfect his

22

punitive damages claim because PG&E has a “take it or sue me” approach to settlements. PG&E

23

responds that the settling homeowners have privacy rights that it must respect, and also argued

24

(during the telephonic hearing) that it would be burdensome to produce all the documents related

25

to such settlements.

26

The ultimate relevance of these documents is unclear. They would be inadmissible unless

27

Clarke prevails on the Known Clarke Property Claims and the jury determines that PG&E has

28

acted in an oppressive, fraudulent or malicious way towards him. Then, the documents might be

1

relevant to the jury’s determination of the amount of punitive damages to award. But determining

2

the reasonableness of each third-party settlement would require extensive discovery and result in

3

individual mini-trials that may well be unnecessary and will certainly be time-consuming and

4

expensive to prepare and present. Rather than allow such discovery at this time, and consistent

5

with my holding in the first paragraph of this Order, I will allow Clarke to inquire in deposition

6

into the methodology PG&E used to arrive at its settlement proposals offering compensation to

7

homeowners in the North Beach MGP and into any policies it has regarding such settlements, and

8

to receive related programmatic documents. I will not allow discovery into any individual

9

settlements at this time. If Clarke obtains a verdict that entitles him to punitive damages, a
separate jury will be empanelled to make that determination after Clarke obtains relevant punitive

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

damages discovery.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 2, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2