Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01477/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01477-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PEGATRON TECHNOLOGY SERVICE 

INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY 

INS. CO.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-01477-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE MAY 28, 2019 JOINT 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER 

Re: Dkt. No. 61

On May 28, 2019, plaintiff Pegatron Technology Service, Inc. (“PTSI”) and defendant 

American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) submitted a joint discovery 

dispute letter concerning PTSI’s document production in response to AGLIC’s requests for 

production. Dkt. No. 61. The Court heard oral argument on the matter on June 3, 2019. Dkt. No. 

63. 

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court orders as follows:

1. If PTSI has not already done so, it shall produce by June 7, 2019 the following 

documents:

a. PTSI’s balance sheets for the years 2016 and 2017;

b. PTSI’s tax returns for 2015 and 2016;

c. PTSI’s invoices to Customer for 2016;

d. General ledger detail of transaction entries for the settlement amounts at issue 

in this case, including any settlement consideration provided to Customer by 

PTSI, any settlement consideration provided by Vendor to PTSI, and any 

settlement consideration provided by Chubb to PTSI; and

Case 5:18-cv-01477-LHK Document 65 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Northern District of California

e. Documents supporting the two line items in the PTSI spreadsheet to which 

AGLIC refers at page 5 of the joint discovery dispute letter.

PTSI must produce the above-referenced documents in its possession, custody, or control, 

including any documents that PTSI has the legal right to obtain upon demand from its parent, 

Pegatron Corporation. See, e.g., Sharma v. BMW of North America LLC, No. 13-cv-02274 MMC 

(KAW), 2016 WL 1019668, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) (summarizing applicable standard). 

The documents, including ESI, must be produced in a form that is complete and legible.

2. Because PTSI has asserted a claim for Brandt fees, PTSI must produce its 

unredacted legal invoices reflecting the amounts sought to be recovered. See R&R Sails, Inc. v. 

Ins. Co. of the State of Penn., 673 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2012); Yahoo! Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. 

Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 5:17-cv-00489-EJD, Dkt. No. 131 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2019);

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, No. 12-cv-05000-JST, 2014 WL 12709392 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 

2014). PTSI must produce these invoices by June 7, 2019. 

3. The Court denies AGLIC’s request to compel PTSI-Vendor communications and 

the PTSI-Vendor joint defense agreement. Given PTSI’s representation that it is prepared to 

stipulate that it will not assert at trial that any portion of the settlement amount paid by Vendor to 

resolve PTSI’s indemnity claim was consideration for something else, the Court concludes that the 

discovery PTSI seeks is not relevant to a claim or defense or proportional to the needs of this case, 

at least to the extent AGLIC contends the discovery is required to demonstrate that Vendor’s 

payment to PTSI should serve as an offset to any claim by PTSI against AGLIC in this case. 

AGLIC made additional arguments in support of this discovery at the hearing, but these arguments 

were not made in the joint submission and appeared to be based on unsupported speculation about 

the contents of the communications.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-01477-LHK Document 65 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 2