Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01593/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01593-10/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. of

Pittsburgh, PA et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Seagate Technology, Inc. et al.,

Defendant(s). /

NO. C 04-01593 JW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE HEARING ON CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING MOTION TO STAY ORDER

OF APRIL 4, 2005; DENYING

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

NOVEMBER 1, 2005 ORDER

This lawsuit arises out of contract disputes between, on the one hand, Plaintiffs National

Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA ("National"), American International Underwriters

Insurance Company ("AIU"),(collectively "Plaintiffs") and, on the other hand, Defendant Seagate

Technology, Inc. ("Seagate" or "Defendant"). Plaintiffs are insurance companies and Defendant is

their insured. Plaintiffs pray for, inter alia, a declaratory judgment finding that they have no

obligation to defend or indemnify Defendant in connection with a separate lawsuit pending in New

York, Convolve, Inc., et al. v. Seagate Technology, LLC, et al., C00-5141(S.D.N.Y.) (the

“Underlying Action”). 

By order dated April 4, 2005, the Court determined that Plaintiffs have an obligation to

defend Seagate in the Underlying Action (“April 4, 2005 Order”). Thereafter, the parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment to determine when Plaintiffs’ duty to defend was triggered. 

Plaintiffs contend that the duty arose no earlier than the September 18, 2003, when Seagate tendered

Convolve’s response to Supplemental Interrogatory No. 23. In contrast, Seagate contends that the

duty to defend arose at the outset of the Underlying Action. These cross-motions for summary

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 122 Filed 01/26/06 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

judgment are currently scheduled for hearing on January 30, 2006.

On January 20, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the January 30, 2006 hearing date,

and a motion to stay the April 4, 2005 Order. Plaintiffs contend that the continuance and stay are

necessary to permit them additional time to review materials sought from Seagate pursuant to a

motion to compel. Plaintiffs believe that the materials they seek bear not only on the issue of

whether a duty to defend still exists, but also on when, if ever, such a duty arose. On January 24,

2006, Plaintiffs filed an Errata with respect to their motion to continue and stay. On January 25,

2006, Seagate filed an opposition, which stated that it intends to file “complete opposition papers

before the January 30, 2006 hearing.”

Based upon all papers filed to date, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to continue the

January 30, 2006 hearing. The continuance is intended to give Plaintiffs time to review the

materials they seek from Seagate and to supplement their motion for summary judgment, if

appropriate. The continuance is also intended to promote judicial economy. Accordingly, the

hearing date for the cross-motions for summary judgment is continued from January 30, 2006 to

March 27, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing, if any, must be filed and served no

later than February 28, 2006; Seagate’s supplemental briefing, if any, must be filed and served no

later than March 14, 2006.

The motion to stay the April 4, 2005 Order is denied.

Lastly, the Court has reviewed Defendant’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order on

National Union’s and AIU’s Motion to Compel, and Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s

Objection. Defendant’s Objection is denied. Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order is neither clearly

erroneous nor contrary to law. Defendant Seagate shall comply with Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s

Order no later than February 3, 2006. 

Dated: January 26, 2006

04cv1593motion

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 122 Filed 01/26/06 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 S. Robinson asr@robinsonwood.com

Charles A. Reid charles.reid@dbr.com

Cheryl A. Jorgensen Cheryl.jorgensen@dbr.com

Daniel Justin Weinberg dweinberg@orrick.com

John L. Winchester jlw@r-winc.com

Mark R. Weinstein mweinstein@whitecase.com

Robert E. Freitas rfreitas@orrick.com

Dated: January 26, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 122 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 3