Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04592/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04592-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed January 29, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

In re ATMEL CORPORATION 

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION 

 

____________________________________/

No. C06-04592 JF (HRL) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

[Re: Docket No. 237] 

This litigation is a shareholder derivative action against nominal defendant Atmel 

Corporation (“Atmel”) and several individual defendants relating to alleged improper backdating of 

Atmel stock options. Defendant J. Michael Ross, Atmel’s former General Counsel, now moves to 

compel production of several categories of documents and an updated privilege log. Atmel opposes 

the motion. Upon consideration of the motion papers, the arguments presented at the hearing, and 

the parties’ joint status report, this court grants Ross’s motion in part and denies it in part. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Historical and New Documents 

The court held a hearing on this motion on December 22, 2009. At the hearing, the court 

ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop a set of search terms and custodian lists that both 

parties would find satisfactory to address Ross’s request for production of additional documents for 

both the “historical” period (those generated from January 1, 1997 to July 31, 2006) and the “new” 

period (those generated from July 31, 2006 to June 27, 2007). Pursuant to that order, the parties 

Case 5:06-cv-04592-JF Document 283 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

submitted a joint status report to the court on January 29, 2010 that detailed their meet and confer 

efforts. In the joint report, Ross indicates that he withdraws his motion as to additional searches for 

both “historical” and “new” documents at this time. Accordingly, the court DENIES AS MOOT his 

motion as to these requests. 

B. Restatement Documents and Document Retention Policies

Ross also moves to compel documents relating to Atmel’s financial restatements, document 

retention policies, and nonprivileged document preservation notices. At the motion hearing, the 

parties confirmed that Atmel had made appropriate production for these categories and would be 

updating its privilege log to reflect notices it withheld on privilege grounds. As a result, the court 

DENIES AS MOOT Ross’s motion as to these requests. 

C. Privilege Log 

In the joint report, the parties represent that Atmel will update its privilege log by January 

29, 2010. To the extent this has not occurred, the court GRANTS Ross’s motion for an updated 

privilege log. Furthermore, the court GRANTS Ross’s request that the court require Atmel to 

update its privilege logs within thirty days of any subsequent production. 

D. Travel Investigation and Proxy Fight Documents 

Before Atmel initiated its investigation into stock option backdating, it investigated 

allegations that some of its executives were using company money for personal travel expenses. 

After this investigation, Atmel terminated Ross’s employment as it found he had misused such 

travel funds. Atmel also terminated its Chief Executive Officer, George Perlegos, for similar 

reasons. Four days after the travel investigation ended, Atmel announced its investigation into stock 

option backdating using the same outside counsel that had just recommended Ross’s and Perlegos’s 

terminations. Perlegos then instituted a proxy fight for control of Atmel’s board, which he later 

withdrew during the course of the stock option backdating investigation. 

Ross moves to compel production of all documents relating to the travel investigation and 

proxy fight. Atmel argues that these requests are irrelevant because such “documents have nothing 

to do with stock options or the subject matter of this litigation.” (Opp’n 5.) Ross counters that the 

travel investigation documents might show that Atmel was biased against him during the later 

Case 5:06-cv-04592-JF Document 283 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

backdating investigation. He also argues that the proxy documents could show that Atmel was 

motivated to blame him and Perlegos in the backdating investigation in order to discredit Perlegos 

during the proxy fight. 

Ross has failed to convince the court that his speculative interest in the travel investigation 

and proxy fight documents are relevant or likely to produce admissible evidence in this case, which 

focuses on Ross’s participation, or lack thereof, in stock option backdating. Ross alleges generally 

that Atmel was biased against him during the stock option backdating investigation. Yet evidence 

of that alleged bias would surely appear in documents pertaining to the stock option investigation at 

issue in this case—documents that Ross already has—instead of in documents for the earlier, 

unrelated travel investigation or in documents for a proxy fight that did not involve Ross at all. 

Consequently, Ross’s motion as to the travel investigation and proxy fight documents is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-04592-JF Document 283 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C 06-04592 JF (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Alan Roth Plutzik aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com 

Amy M. Ross aross@orrick.com 

Andrew Michael Purdy apurdy@pldlawyers.com 

Betsy Carol Manifold manifold@whafh.com 

Brian Lawrence Levine BLevine@mofo.com, vvandergrift@mofo.com 

Darryl Paul Rains drains@mofo.com, dgillis@mofo.com 

Emanuel Shachmurove mshachmurove@sbtklaw.com 

Eric L. Zagar ezagar@btkmc.com, dalbert@btkmc.com, der_filings@btkmc.com, 

 rwinchester@btkmc.com, tkao@btkmc.com 

Francis M. Gregorek gregorek@whafh.com 

James Lawrence Pagano paganolaw@aol.com 

Jessica Koren Nall jnall@fbm.com, bheuss@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com 

John L. Cooper jcooper@fbm.com, brestivo@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com 

Karen Julie Stambaugh kstambaugh@orrick.com, gjohnson@orrick.com 

Kathryn Anne Schofield kschofield@bramsonplutzik.com, moldenburg@bramsonplutzik.com 

Kenneth P. Herzinger kherzinger@orrick.com, bclarke@orrick.com 

Lawrence Timothy Fisher ltfisher@bramsonplutzik.com, moldenburg@bramsonplutzik.com 

Lily Irene Becker lbecker@orrick.com 

Marisa C. Livesay livesay@whafh.com 

Michael David Torpey mtorpey@orrick.com 

Nichole T. Browning nbrowning@btkmc.com, shebard@btkmc.com 

Rachele R. Rickert rickert@whafh.com 

Tara Puhua Kao tkao@sbtklaw.com, der_filings@sbtklaw.com 

Todd L. Burlingame burlingame@mofo.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

Case 5:06-cv-04592-JF Document 283 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 4