SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
400 COUNTY CENTER
REDWOOD CITY, CA94063-1655
FILED
3
NPy
27
2012
CI
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule
3.550)
PGkE "SAN BRUNO FIRE"
CASES
12
13
14
A
)
)
JCCP No. 4648
)
TORT ACTIONS
)
)
)
)
)
)
FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT
RE: PROTOCOLS FOR
MANDATORYSETTLEMENT
CONFERENCES
)
15
)
)
)
16
17
18
On March 29, 2012, the court issued an order setting forth the protocols to be adopted
in conducting the Mandatory Settlement Conferences (MSC's). During the November 20,
2012 case management conference in this matter, the court was informed that this order was
21
not being complied with, thereby hampering the settlement process.
The court is therefore
issuing this further order to insure that the protocols ordered by the court are strictly followed
23
by both parties. The protocols set forth in this order, as well as those set forth in the March
29 order, apply to all trial category cases set for an MSC or mediation prior to trial, whether
or not specifically mentioned in this order.
26
A. December MSC's: Nine cases are set for December MSC's —12/5 Vasquez;12/12
Ta&alis; 12/13 Au; 12/14 Boosten; 12/17 Tragas; 12/18 Nielsen; 12/19 Prez; 12/20 Costanzo;
27
28
and 12/28 Wieland. The protocols set forth below are to be strictly followed at these MSC's.
Ifafter the first scheduled
MSC on December 5, 2012, either party believes the protocols are
not being followed, the party is to inform the special master handling the matter
of the
alleged
noncompliance so that the special master can inform the court. Furthermore, both sides
2
previously invited the court to contact the special masters to determine whether there were any
3
4
issues regarding compliance
with the court's March 29 order. The court
continue to monitor the MSC's, including,
ifnecessary,
will
has done so and
further contact with the special
masters.
6
B. Attendance at MSC's: The court had previously ordered that all decision makers
were to be personally present at the MSC's. To clarify who must be present at each
8
December MSC's the court is further ordering that at each
g
officer, director, or someone designated by PG&E
of equal
of the
of the December MSC's either
an
status must attend each MSC. This
officer, director or designee must have full settlement authority, meaning authority to settle at
the MSC without the need for further consultation with any other PG&E representative.
12
addition, at each MSC PG&E must have present any insurance representative responsible for
coverage, primary and/or excess,
13
14
15
In
settle within the demands
of the particular PlaintifF s demand, with full authority to
of each Plaintiff's written demand, without the
need
for obtaining
any further authority.
C. Demand Packages:
The court had previously ordered that both parties were to fully
and completely cooperate in producing all necessary documentation
for the MSC's, and the
March 29'" order set forth what documentation was required and established time deadlines for
The court has been informed by Plaintiffs that PG&E has failed to
18
this documentation.
1g
provide them and the special master the necessary documentation in accordance with the
March 29 order. The court thus orders that PG&E is to provide Plaintiffs and the special
master with a copy
22
23
24
25
of its responsive MSC statement
no later than five (5) days before the
scheduled MSC, or sanctions, as explained below, may be imposed.
The court has further been informed that the MSC's have been hampered because
PG&E is not required to present
a counter settlement demand
until the MSC. The court finds
it would be more efficient for PG&E to present its counter settlement demand prior to the
MSC and thus orders that PG&E provide Plaintiffs and the special master for the case with a
realistic and definite amount counter settlement demand at least five (5) days prior to the
scheduled MSC.
28
Finally, Plaintiffs have provided the court with a list of documents they need to have
2
produced prior to the scheduled MSC's. The court agrees and orders that PG&E provide
Plaintiffs with the following documents preferably at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled
3
MSC, but in no event later than five (5) days prior to the scheduled MSC:
4
5
related
l. Any and all documents that PG&E has within its possession, custody and control,
to the claims of the Tragas, Costanzo, Neilson, Au, Wieland, Perez/Fleites, and
Boosten families;
7
2.
Any and all documents that PG&E has within its possession, custody and control,
8
related to any defense that PG&E has to the claims
9
Wieland, Perez/Fleites, and Boosten families;
3.
of the
Tragas, Costanzo, Neilson, Au,
Any and all documents that PG&E has within its possession, custody and control,
that were provided directly to the PG&E "claims representatives" by the Tragas, Costanzo,
12
Neilson, Au, Wieland, Perez/Fleites, and Boosten families;
4.
13
A list of the payments that PG&E contends that it has made to date to the Tragas,
Costanzo, Neilson, Au, Wieland, Perez/Fleites, and Boosten families.
14
D. Sanctions Clause: Noncompliance with this order or the terms
2012 by either party may subject that party to sanctions.
Furthermore,
of the March 29,
ifeither party chooses
to cancel an MSC because of the other party's noncompliance, sanctions for the party not in
compliance may include, but are not limited to, the cancelling party's portion
18
special master's fee.
E. Service: Liaison counsel
19
2p
of the forfeited
for Plaintiffs is directed to serve all counsel, and all eight
(8) neutrals selected to serve as special masters pursuant to the March 29'" order, with a copy
of this
order.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: November
012
4
26
STEVEN L. DYLINA
27
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR CP
28
T