Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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 1

 These letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 258, 268, and 271. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04082 SI

ORDER GRANTINGST. PAUL’S MOTION

TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION

AND ISSUING PROTECTIVE ORDER 

On October 13, 2005, defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) filed an

“Objection” to Judge Zimmerman’ssecond discovery order. On October 20, 2005, Atmel filed a response,

and on October 21, 2004, St. Paul filed a reply. 1

St. Paul seeks to depose John Bryant, Atmel’s Vice President, regarding his knowledge of customer

or end user claims, concerns, incidents or inquiries about Atmel’s use ofthe red phosphorous mold compound

in products other than the 1, 2 or 4 megabit chips. St. Paul also wishes to depose other Atmel witnesses

regarding the same subject. Based upon this Court’s August 31, 2005 Order, Atmel’s counsel instructed Mr.

Bryant not to answer questions about customer complaintsinvolving products (aside fromthe 1, 2 or 4 megabit

chips) containing the mold compound for the time period January 1, 2002 through July 31, 2003. The parties

dispute whether the Court’s August 31, 2005 order, which limited document discovery for that same time

period to the 1, 2 or 4 megabit chips, was based on relevance or burden.

In its October 20, 2005 letter brief, Atmelinforms the Court that the parties have been operating under

a compromise by which Atmel has allowed questions regarding any product made with the mold compound

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 282 Filed 10/26/05 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

 Atmel states in its opposition that St. Paul has announced that should it prevail on the instant motion,

it intendsto seek reconsideration ofthe Court’s August 31, 2005 order so thatitmay seek document discovery

regarding complaints about chips other than the 1, 2 or 4 megabit chips. The Court is not inclined to reconsider

the August 31, 2005 order in that respect because the Court finds that such document discovery would be

unduly burdensome.

2

for a four month time period prior to December 31, 2001. Atmel states that “Atmel’s witnesses have been

testifying regarding any customer of any Atmel chip (whether or not the same type sold to Seagate) who had

red phosphorous-related problems or issues priorto December 31, 2001 - the only time period relevant to St.

Paul’s rescission counterclaims.” 

St. Paul responds that Atmel’s knowledge of complaints and concerns during the period after

December 31, 2001 is relevant because St. Paul renewed the Atmel policy through January 1, 2004. The

Court agrees thatAtmel’s knowledge of complaints and concerns afterDecember 31, 2001 regarding products

made with the mold compound is potentially relevant because St. Paul renewed the policy in December 2002,

and St. Paul seeks rescission of the renewed policy (Counterclaim ¶¶ 6-29). The Court’s August 31, 2005

order, which limited document discovery to documents relating to the 1, 2 and 4 megabit chips, was premised

on burden, notrelevance. Because the concerns about burden are not implicated in the same way with respect

to depositions, the Court hereby GRANTS St. Paul’s motion to compelfurther deposition testimony fromMr.

Bryant and to allow St. Paul to ask other deponents similar questions.2

Atmel also contends that allowing St. Paul to question witnesses regarding customer complaints and

concerns poses a significant risk of harm to Atmel’s business relationships as well as the risk of additional

litigationto Atmeland its customers. The parties dispute whether the current protective order would adequately

protect against these risks. Atmel has provided the Court with a copy of the protective order issued by the

state court in the Seagate Action. In that order, the court allowed Seagate to conduct discovery regarding

customer complaints, but found that Seagate had not demonstrated that the particular customer names were

relevant. The court ordered that “[w]here examination calls for customer names, customers are to be identified

by a code letter or number and a record of those codes will be maintained so that the appropriate customers’

names can be promptly supplied, should a subsequent order require that.” Discovery Order No. 15 in Seagate

Action, Exh. B to Ancar Decl.

The Court concludes that a similar protective order should govern St. Paul’s discovery of customer

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 282 Filed 10/26/05 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

3

complaints. As discussed above, what is relevant is Atmel’s knowledge of complaints, questions orinquiries

regarding products made with the mold compound. St. Paul has not contended that the identity of the

complainantsis relevant, and the Court cannot, based upon the record presented, discern any reason why the

complainants’ identities would be relevant to this litigation. Accordingly, in the continued deposition of John

Bryant, and any other Atmelwitnessto whomthis order pertains, customers are to be identified by a code letter

or number and a record of those codes will be maintained so that the appropriate customers’ names can be

promptly supplied, should that be required by a subsequent order.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS St. Paul’s motion to compelfurther deposition

testimony, and ENTERS a protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October _25___, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 282 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 3