Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082-16/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. 287, 302 and 305.

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 CO.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04082 SI

ORDER DENYING ST. PAUL’S

OBJECTION TO THIRD DISCOVERY

ORDER

On October 28, 2005, defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) filed an

“Objection” to a portionofJudge Zimmerman’sThird Discovery Order. Atmel Corporation (“Atmel”) has filed

an opposition, and St. Paul has filed a reply.1

The Court reviews Judge Zimmerman’s discovery ruling to determine if it is “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). St. Paul objects to the portion of Judge Zimmerman’s Third

Discovery Order requiring St. Paul to respond to interrogatories and produce documents related to any insured

who tendered claims to St. Paul under a policy that included the “Fraud and Misrepresentation Clause” where

St. Paul alleged grounds for rescission. St. Paul contends that such discovery is irrelevant, burdensome, and

involves confidential information. St. Paul states that there are two insureds that fall in this category, and that

documents related to these claims fills approximately 60 bankers’ boxes.

In response, Atmelcontends that the discovery at issue is relevant to whether St. Paul’s rescissionwas

in bad faith, as Atmelhas alleged. Atmel also argues that the discovery is no more burdensome than discovery

St. Paul has propounded on Atmel, and further that Atmel did not raise burden in its previous letter briefs nor

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 311 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 2
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

before Judge Zimmerman. Finally, Atmel contends that the current protective orders are sufficient to protect

against any confidentiality concerns, particularly given that Atmel’s discovery specifies that St. Paul may use

anonymous identifiers in place of insured’s names.

The Court concludes that Judge Zimmerman’s discovery order is neither clearly erroneous nor is it

contrary to law, and accordingly DENIES St. Paul’s objection. Regardless of the effect of the “Fraud and

Misrepresentation” clause in this case, Atmel has alleged that St. Paul’s rescission was improper and in bad

faith, and thus discovery into St. Paul’s rescission and investigationprocedures is relevant to these claims. Even

if St. Paul raised burden before Judge Zimmerman, the Court finds no reason to disturb his ruling, as Atmel is

correct that both sides have propounded wide-ranging discovery requests and both sides have already

produced voluminous discovery. Finally, the existing protective order, combined with the use of anonymous

identifiers, adequately addresses any of St. Paul’s confidentiality concerns.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 311 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2