In re: PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: PG&E CORPORATION and Case No. 25-cv-05609-HSG PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL 9 Debtors.

Re: Dkt. No. 1 13 Appellant Directors and Underwriters, who are non-parties to the Bankruptcy Action, moved for a protective order from the Bankruptcy Court for relief from subpoenas issued by certain bankruptcy claimants. The Directors and Underwriters urged that the subpoenas violated the automatic stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSRLA”) and were intended as an end-run around the stay in a parallel securities case pending in federal district court. See In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-03509-EJD.1 The Bankruptcy Court denied this request, concluding that the PSLRA’s stay of discovery did not apply to the Bankruptcy Action. See Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. A. The court reasoned that “the PSLRA does not provide a safe harbor from third-party discovery from non-parties in the bankruptcy case, regardless of their status as defendants in district court litigation . . . .” Id. at 3. The Directors and Underwriters now seek relief from the Bankruptcy Court’s order. See Dkt. No. 1.

24 District courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees of a bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). A non-final bankruptcy court order can be Since filing this appeal, the Directors and Underwriters have filed a motion to dismiss the fourth reviewed on appeal only if this Court grants leave. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002, 8004. The Ninth Circuit has held that interlocutory appeals should be allowed “sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.” See In re Cement Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave to appeal an interlocutory order is appropriate where (1) there is a controlling question of law, (2) as to which a substantial ground for a difference of opinion exists, and (3) an immediate appeal could materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See id. In deciding whether to grant leave to appeal under § 158(a)(3), courts look to the analogous provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) governing review of interlocutory district court orders by the courts of appeal. In re Belli, 268 B.R. 851, 858 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001); In re Wilson, No. BR 13-11374 AJ, 2014 WL 122074, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014).

12 The Court acknowledges the odd procedural posture here where securities claims are pending in two different forums, before two different judges, at two different procedural stages.

14 Still, even under these unique circumstances, the Court finds that there is no basis to grant interlocutory review. Resolving whether the PSLRA’s automatic stay of discovery should apply to the securities claims in the Bankruptcy Action would not materially advance the litigation. The Directors and Underwriters suggest that the stay would save them time and expense as non-parties, but offer no explanation how it would appreciably streamline the bankruptcy litigation itself.

19 Moreover, as the Bankruptcy Court explained in denying the protective order, “even if the district court were to dismiss the defendants there, they would still need to respond to discovery here.”

21 Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. A at 3. To the extent the Directors and Underwriters believe the requested discovery is overly burdensome and disproportionate, they may seek appropriate relief from the Bankruptcy Court to narrow its scope.2 // // In denying the Directors and Underwriters’ request for a protective order, the Bankruptcy Court 1 The Court therefore declines to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal and DENIES the || motion. Dkt. No. 1. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

° HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge

© = 17 Z 18