United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER REGARDING GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge
Yesterday
evening, the Government lodged objections to several
“potential” exhibits Defendant Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (“PG&E”) may introduce
during trial today, Dkt. No. 790, as well as three specific
exhibits PG&E intends to introduce, Dkt. No. 791.
PG&E timely responded to these objections. Dkt. Nos. 794,
796. Having carefully considered the parties’
arguments, the Court now SUSTAINS IN PART the
Government’s objections.
DOCKET
790
The
“potential” exhibits identified by the Government
include: (i) exhibits demonstrating that California was a
certified state under 49 U.S.C. § 60105(a) for the years
2007 through 2014, Dkt. No. 794 at 1, which appear to achieve
the same purpose as PG&E’s separately pending
Request for Judicial Notice of Facts Related to 49 U.S.C
§ 60105(a), Dkt. No. 776; and (ii) the same maps of
where PG&E employees live that this Court previously
excluded as untimely under Federal Rule of Evidence
(“Rule”) 1006, Dkt. No. 758.
With
respect to the “certification” exhibits, the
Court shares the Government’s skepticism that PG&E
is attempting “to sidestep the Court’s earlier
ruling denying PG&E’s motion to dismiss . . .
[which] was based on the theory that Section 60105 limits the
Attorney General’s authority to prosecute intrastate
pipelines in California because the [California Public
Utilities Commission (‘CPUC’)] has exclusive
regulatory authority over such pipelines.” Dkt. No. 789
at 1. Moreover, the only relevance PG&E has offered for
these exhibits is that they explain “the basis for the
CPUC’s authority to regulate PG&E.” Dkt. No.
794 at 1. But California’s status as a certified state
is not a “fact . . . of consequence in determining
[this] action.” Fed.R.Evid. 401; see also Dkt.
No. 216. For this reason, the exhibits risk confusing the
issues the jury is being asked to consider, while offering
little to no probative value. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS
the Government’s Rule 401 and 403 objections to these
exhibits.[1]
With
respect to the maps, this Court previously held that
“[u]nless and until PG&E can convince the Court
that the maps . . . are something other than summary
exhibits, the maps shall . . . be excluded under Rule 1006
for PG&E’s failure to timely disclose them and the
content they summarize.” Dkt. No. 758 at 3-4. Far from
challenging the application of Rule 1006, PG&E now
concedes that the maps are “quintessential summary
exhibits” under the Rule. Dkt. No. 794 at 1. And
“possession for over a week” in the course of a
complex criminal prosecution, id., still fails to
constitute production “at a reasonable time and
place.” Fed.R.Evid. 1006. The Court’s ruling on
the admissibility of these maps therefore has not changed.
That said, the Government’s most recent objection to
the maps did not include a Rule 1006 argument. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government shall inform the
Court, by the first break in trial today, whether it believes
it has had a sufficient opportunity to verify the reliability
and accuracy of the maps in the intervening week since it
received them.
DOCKET
791
As to
the three specific exhibits identified by the Government -
Defense Exhibits 119, 267, and 273 - the Government’s
only objection is that the entirety of the documents be
admitted under Rule 106. Dkt. No. 791 at 1. PG&E’s
response suggests the parties have actually reached
agreement on this issue since the Government’s filing,
which would obviate the need for any evidentiary rulings on
these exhibits. Dkt. No. 796 at 1. It is not clear, however,
whether the Government’s agreement to “stipulate
to the admission of . . . D-119, D-267, and D-273” was
conditioned upon PG&E’s agreement to admit
“all of D-147 except for portions that explicitly
reference San Bruno, ” to which PG&E has not
agreed. Id.
Accordingly,
the Court tentatively accepts the parties’ stipulations
as to Defense Exhibits 119, 267, and 273. And the
Court’s ruling on Defense Exhibit 147 stands: “If
the Government can identify other portions of this exhibit
‘that in fairness ought to be considered at the same
time, ’ Fed.R.Evid. 106, then the Court will consider
admitting those portions under Rule 106, within the confines
of its prior evidentiary rulings.’” Dkt. No. 786.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] This ruling does not prevent PG&E
from offering some better explanation for the relevance of
such information in a reply in support of its separately
pending Request for Judicial Notice of Facts Related to 49
U.S.C ยง 60105(a), Dkt. No. 776, which the Government has
timely opposed, Dkt. No. 789. If PG&E wishes to offer
such justification, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PG&E shall
file a reply in support of its Request for Judicial ...