Filed: Jul. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE ALL TESTIMONY RELATED TO GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBIT 450 THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . On July 7, 2016, Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") made an oral motion to strike all testimony related to Government's Exhibit 450. After carefully considering the parties' oral arguments, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. BACKGROUND On July 7, 2016, the Government introduced Exhibit 450 — an email chain launched by witness William Manego
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE ALL TESTIMONY RELATED TO GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBIT 450 THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . On July 7, 2016, Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") made an oral motion to strike all testimony related to Government's Exhibit 450. After carefully considering the parties' oral arguments, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. BACKGROUND On July 7, 2016, the Government introduced Exhibit 450 — an email chain launched by witness William Manegol..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE ALL TESTIMONY RELATED TO GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBIT 450
THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.
On July 7, 2016, Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") made an oral motion to strike all testimony related to Government's Exhibit 450. After carefully considering the parties' oral arguments, the Court hereby DENIES the motion.
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2016, the Government introduced Exhibit 450 — an email chain launched by witness William Manegold regarding "segments that were at or above 50% [Specified Minimum Yield Strength (`SMYS')] at [Maximum Operating Pressure (`MOP')]," and an attached spreadsheet detailing this information. Gov't's Ex. 450 at 1. The Government then asked Mr. Manegold a series of questions about the underlying spreadsheet.
At the close of testimony on the same day, PG&E made the following oral motion to strike all testimony related to Exhibit 450:
So I'd like to make a motion to strike all the testimony that's related to this last spreadsheet in Exhibit 450. It appeared that the thrust of the testimony . . . was that they were listing pipes at percentages higher than SMYS and there is nothing in the indictment that charges us with doing anything greater than SMYS. Apparently, their theory is that there were exceedances over MOP. So I think it's — it's not something that we were prepared to defend ourselves against. I think it's a constructive amendment and so, therefore, I move to strike the testimony.
Trial Tr., Vol. 16 at 2422:21-2423:10.1
DISCUSSION
PG&E's argument about constructive amendment is unpersuasive. The Government took steps to tie the challenged SMYS testimony to PG&E's MOP practices, which are directly at issue in this case. For example, the following exchange occurred before the admission of Exhibit 450:
Q: Is there a relationship between the percentage SMYS and the maximum operating pressure for a segment?
A: Um, yes.
Q: If the percentage SMYS is too high, would PG&E need to lower the maximum operating pressure?
A: Yes.
Trial Tr., Vol. 16 at 2353:4-12.
That said, the Government did ask questions in connection with Exhibit 450 that might suggest compliance with SMYS regulations is at issue in this case. For example, the Government asked:
Q: And are you able to tell, assuming that this information in this chart is correct, whether the pipe had been operating over the MOP that would have been required to bring it into SMYS compliance?
Id. at 2416:23-2417:1.
However, even if the Court agreed that such questions have completely no place in this prosecution, which it does not, striking all testimony on Exhibit 450 would do more harm than good. Testimony about SMYS has been ubiquitous throughout this trial, so it is highly unlikely the Government's questions about Exhibit 450 left the jury with the impression that the Government was attempting to prove the violation of a heretofore unmentioned Pipeline Safety Act regulation.2 Asking the jury not to consider this area of testimony would therefore unnecessarily draw attention to it, creating more risk (not less) to PG&E that the jury will focus on SMYS exceedances as evidence of a Pipeline Safety Act violation. Given the lack of benefit to granting PG&E's motion, striking the testimony would also unnecessarily confuse the issues; it would require explaining to the jury (for no discernable purpose) which snippets of highly technical, days old testimony to ignore.
Moreover, the Government assured the Court that it did not elicit testimony on Exhibit 450 for the improper purpose that PG&E suggests. Id. at 2423:12-21. Nevertheless, the Government is cautioned to tread carefully when structuring its questions, as to guarantee that they aim only to elicit testimony relevant to violations of the charged regulations.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, PG&E's motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
