United States v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
178 F. Supp. 3d 927
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- On Sept. 9, 2010 a PG&E gas pipeline (Line 132, Segment 180) ruptured in San Bruno, CA, causing deaths and major property damage; subsequent NTSB and CPUC investigations followed.
- The Superseding Indictment charges PG&E with (1) obstructing the NTSB investigation by concealing an internal policy (RMI-06) that tolerated pressure above the 5-year MOP by 10% and (2) multiple knowing-and-willful violations of Pipeline Safety Act regulations in 49 C.F.R. part 192 (integrity management and recordkeeping counts).
- Central evidentiary disputes: admissibility of evidence about the explosion and its aftermath; use of NTSB reports and witness testimony; CPUC findings and remedial measures; corporate financial/profit-motive evidence; post-accident remedial acts; recordkeeping evidence (including Line 147) and whether recordkeeping violations are continuing offenses for statute-of-limitations purposes.
- The court found the San Bruno explosion itself relevant to motive and intent for obstruction and to regulatory counts, but excluded highly graphic or emotionally inflammatory materials and testimony linking regulatory violations to causation of the explosion.
- The court held NTSB factual materials and urgent recommendations may be used for non‑hearsay/state‑of‑mind purposes but excluded NTSB conclusions/opinions; limited NTSB employees to firsthand factual testimony and barred experts from relying on NTSB reports.
- Critically, the court held the Part 192 recordkeeping requirements are continuing offenses (records must be retained "for the useful life" / "as long as the pipe remains in service"), so pre‑limitations‑period recordkeeping failures may be admissible if the knowing-and-willful failure continued into the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (PG&E) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of San Bruno explosion evidence | Explosion and context are probative of motive, intent, and regulatory violations | Explosion is not an element; graphic evidence is prejudicial and risks confusing jury | Explosion is relevant; limited admission allowed (fact of deadly explosion, maps, NTSB/NTSB‑related witnesses); graphic images, videos, deceased/victims testimony excluded |
| Use of NTSB reports & witness testimony | Urgent NTSB recommendations and factual materials relevant to PG&E state of mind; may be non‑hearsay | NTSB reports barred by statute/regulation and hearsay rules; conclusions prejudicial | NTSB urgent recommendations admissible for non‑hearsay purposes; NTSB conclusions/opinions excluded; NTSB employees limited to firsthand factual observations; experts may not rely on NTSB reports |
| CPUC penalties, remedial measures, and admissions | CPUC admissions and remedial measures show knowledge of deficiencies and willfulness | CPUC penalties/remedies are prejudicial and irrelevant to criminal charges | CPUC monetary penalty evidence excluded; CPUC remedial measures largely excluded if prejudicial, but certain remedial/imposed measures and admissions may be admissible except where risk of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value |
| Post‑accident remedial measures (Rule 407) | Many post‑accident measures are probative of state of mind and relevant to charged regulations | Rule 407 bars subsequent remedial measures to prove culpability | Court allows Rule 407 to apply in criminal context but excludes categories that are irrelevant or unduly prejudicial; voluntary remedial measures that would have prevented explosion generally excluded, but compelled/regulatory‑mandated changes and measures directly tied to charged regs may be admissible |
| Recordkeeping evidence & statute of limitations (continuing offense) | Historic missing records and later deficiencies show knowledge/willfulness; continuing failure is probative within limitations period | Pre‑2007 conduct outside limitations; admitting pre‑effective/regulatory conduct risks unfairness | Court holds Part 192 recordkeeping rules create continuing offenses; pre‑limitations records failures admissible if knowing/willful failure continued into limitations period; evidence of pre‑effective conduct may be used to show post‑effective obligations but government may not argue pre‑effective conduct itself violated later regs |
| Line 147 and similar uncharged lines (404(b)/inextricably intertwined) | Line 147 record errors and delayed reporting show pattern and intent; admissible under Rule 404(b) or as inextricably intertwined | Defense contends Line 147 is unrelated, prejudicial, and invites mini‑trials | Court: Line 147 evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) except aspects that would unduly prejudice (e.g., cause of discovery like a leak and CPUC penalty are excluded); evidence about other uncharged lines admissible as inextricably intertwined with systemic violations |
| Corporate profit motive/financial evidence | Financial motive probative of willfulness (cost‑cutting over safety); expert may testify | Financial figures are prejudicial and not directly tied to elements | Court: financial/profit motive evidence may be admissible if tied to specific decisions reflecting safety tradeoffs; excluded where merely wealth statements or cumulative; admissibility reserved for trial context |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (unfair‑prejudice analysis and prosecution's entitlement to narrative presentation)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (Sup. Ct. 1970) (continuing‑offense doctrine framework)
- Del Percio v. United States, 870 F.2d 1090 (6th Cir. 1989) (consideration of continuing‑offense analysis when statute is sparse and regulations define conduct)
- United States v. Gonzalez‑Flores, 418 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2005) (exclusion of collateral emotional details under Rule 403)
- United States v. Vizcarra‑Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1995) (Rule 404(b) inextricably‑intertwined and admissibility test)
- United States v. Tavarez‑Levario, 788 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2015) (limitations rule for continuing offenses)