PG&E battles to seal employee names in grand jury transcripts

Lawyers for Pacific Gas & Electric Co. are fighting to keep secret the names of 22 employees mentioned in criminal grand jury transcripts, citing harassment and threats employees received in the past.

Butte County District Attorney Michael L. Ramsey, who criminally prosecuted the utility for the devastating 2018 Camp Fire, stipulated with PG&E to Superior Court Judge Michael R. Deems that the names of PG&E employees who live and work in the area should be kept secret. But Ramsey is arguing before the 3rd District Court of Appeal that employees who live outside the area should not remain anonymous. 22 Current or Former Employees of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court of California for the County of Butte C092045 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist. June. 26, 2020).

"Recognizing the extraordinary public outcry -- and the threats of violence and actual violence against PG&E employees -- the Superior Court found that there is substantial risk that some PG&E employees will be subject to threats, harassment and violence if their names are released through the grand jury transcript," counsel from Munger Tolles & Olson LLP who represented PG&E in the criminal case, told the court of appeal.

The names of the 22 former and current employees outside Butte County are contained in 6,000 pages of transcripts that resulted in the final grand jury report detailing the Camp Fire investigation. Deems has a redacted version of the transcripts hiding names of only local PG&E workers.

Prosecutors were able to compile a 105-page grand jury report detailing the basis for 85 felony charges against the utility without naming a single person, PG&E's lawyers argued. Innocent workers' identities should be protected whether they live in Butte County or elsewhere, they added.

Harassment against PG&E workers rose sharply in the wake of the Camp Fire and none of those incidents were limited to the Butte County area, the petitioners said.

In her opposition, Deputy District Attorney Jennifer R. Dupre-Tokos argued that no PG&E employee was indicted. More redactions would render the grand jury transcripts nearly unintelligible, she argued. Such protections are only for cases involving minors and sexual assault, she said, and temporary restrictions are in place for cases where witnesses are proven to be under threat of violence or death, like gang cases.

The mere possibility of threats or violence cited by nonlocal workers doesn't allow redactions, nor are they aggrieved parties to the case with grounds to intervene, Dupre-Tokos wrote.

The Camp Fire plea and sentencing were publicized widely in advance, and yet not a single protester showed up to berate or harm PG&E's chief executive officers during the proceedings two weeks ago in Butte County Superior Court, Dupre-Tokos added.

"As such, this doomsday prediction did not come to fruition," Dupre-Tokos argued.

A list compiled by PG&E of threatening incidents against employees spans a decade from September 2010 to spring 2020 and shows 105 reported incidents. Of those, 10 were clearly directed at a specific PG&E worker, the opposition said. Many of those incidents go back a decade before the Camp Fire and were unrelated to a specific employee or the utility itself, Dupre-Tokos said.

Names of former company executives have appeared regularly in the media and many were already associated with the Camp Fire due to civil lawsuits and bankruptcy filings, the opposition said.

If PG&E wants to protect the safety and security of its workers, it could remove the company logo from its vehicles or no longer require employees to wear identifying uniforms, Dupre-Tokos suggested.

She said few of the hostile or threatening incidents specifically refer to the Camp Fire and the majority of those incidents since November 2018 resulted from the public safety power shutoffs, the utility's Chapter 11 proceedings or general disdain for the company.

Social media posts suggesting PG&E's buildings be burned down or their workers imprisoned don't rise to the level of criminal threat, the opposition added. A PG&E office in Oroville got egged, but there is no evidence any employee has been specifically targeted for violence, the opposition said. No evidence has been presented of any attempts to actually carry out the suggested acts of violence against the utility or its workers, the opposition added.