ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, PG&E respectfully requests that ALJ Bushey adopt the revised proposed ruling filed with this Reply, which directs Carmel to provide responses to Questions 13 through 23 in PG&E’s third sets of data requests or precludes Carmel from raising any of its allegations in this proceeding.
Carmel also argues, wrongly, that PG&E must show that it does not have the means to obtain this information through some other source in order to overcome the official information privilege. Carmel Opp. at 9–10. No such requirement appears in the California Evidence Code or was imposed by either of the cases cited by Carmel. In fact, those cases undermine Carmel’s privilege assertion. In People v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. App. 3d 522 (1971), the court of appeal held that a criminal defendant had the right to see the diary entries of police officers for whom he had acted as an informant, despite the prosecution’s assertion of the official information privilege. Id. at 533–34. And in Marylander v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 4th 1119 (2000), the trial court committed reversible error when it denied a motion to compel production of government documents after failing to consider the public interest in disclosure. Id. at 1128–29.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
[PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA