Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01593/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01593-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

National Union Fire Insurance Co., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Seagate Technology, Inc., 

Defendant. /

NO. C 04-01593 JW 

ORDER OVERRULING SEAGATE’S

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION TO

NATIONAL UNION’S AND AIU’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TERMINATING THEIR COURTORDERED DUTY TO DEFEND AND THE

DECLARATION OF CHERYL SABNIS

The Court is in receipt of Defendant Seagate Technology LLC’s (“Seagate”) August 1, 2007

letter seeking an explicit ruling on its evidentiary objection. (See Docket Item No. 218.) Seagate

filed an evidentiary objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Terminating Their CourtOrdered Duty to Defend and the Declaration of Cheryl Sabnis. (See Docket Item No. 207.) Seagate

contended the statements made by Underlying Plaintiff Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) that were cited

by Plaintiffs in their motion and accompanying declaration were inadmissible hearsay and contained

improper legal conclusions. Id.

Though Seagate’s objections were duly noted, they were implicitly overruled by the Court in

its July 18, 2007 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Terminating the CourtOrdered Duty to Defend. (hereafter, “Order,” Docket Item No. 217.) The Order considered the

portions of Plaintiffs’ evidence to which Seagate had objected, but did not rule on Seagate’s

objection. Ninth Circuit law requires Seagate to seek a ruling on its objection in order to preserve it

for appeal. Fenton v. Freedman, 748 F.2d 1358, 1360 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 219 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Convolve’s statements to which Seagate objected were admissible as judicial admissions. 

See American Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 1988); see also

MacDonald v. General Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337, 340 (6th Cir. 1997). This is the only purpose

for which the Court considered Convolve’s statements – that is, the Court did not consider

Convolve’s statements for the truth of the matter asserted, or for any legal conclusions they

contained. Accordingly, Seagate’s objection is overruled.

 

Dated: August 15, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 219 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Archie Stirling Robinson as@robinsonwood.com

Charles A. Reid charles.reid@dbr.com

Cheryl A. Sabnis Cheryl.sabnis@dbr.com

Daniel Justin Weinberg dweinberg@orrick.com

Robert E. Freitas rfreitas@orrick.com

Dated: August 15, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 219 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3