Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082-33/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

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. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

 /

No. C 04-4082 SI

FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING

ORDER

On April 25, 2006, the Court held a final pretrial conference in the above captioned matter. All

parties were represented by counsel. The following matters were resolved:

1. Date of trial: Trial will commence on Monday, May 15, 2006.

2. Number of jurors and challenges: There shall be a jury of 8 members. Each side shall

have up to four peremptory challenges.

3. Voir dire: The Court will conduct general voir dire, and counsel for each side shall have

up to 30 minutes total to question the panel. 

4. Jury instructions: Counsel have submitted certain joint proposed jury instructions, and

separate sets of contested instructions. No later than Friday, May 12, 2006, counsel shall submit one

complete set of proposed instructions, containing both agreed upon instructions (which shall be so

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 742 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 7
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

noted), and contested instructions, all in the order in which they should be read to the jury. Where

contested instructions are included, they should be annotated both with the proponent’s authority for

seeking the instruction and the opponent’s reason for opposition. Where feasible, competing

instructions addressing the same point shall be included together in the single set of proposed

instructions. The final submission shall be filed in hard copy and also submitted to the Court on disk,

suitable for reading by WordPerfect 10.0 (windows) on or before May 12, 2006. 

5. Trial exhibits: No later than Thursday, May 11, 2006, the parties shall submit their trial

exhibits, in binders with numbered tabs separating and identifying each exhibit. The Court shall be

provided with three sets (for the Court, the file and the witness) and each side shall provide one set for

the other side. Only exhibits testified about by a witness will be admitted into evidence. The parties

are directed to meet and confer concerning stipulations regarding authenticity of documents to avoid

the need for testimony by witnesses who are solely custodians of records.

6. Timing of trial: The parties estimated that the trial should take approximately 12 days.

Based on this estimate, each side shall have 45 minutes for opening statements; each side shall have

22 hours total for presentation of evidence, which includes direct and cross-examination and

presentation of all exhibits; and each side shall have up to 60 minutes for closing argument. 

7. Trial schedule: Jury trials are generally conducted Monday through Thursday; jury

trials are generally not conducted on Fridays, although deliberating juries are free to deliberate on

Fridays. The trial day runs from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., with a 15 minute break at 10:00 a.m., a 45

minute break at 12:00 noon and a 15 minute break at 2:00 p.m., all times approximate. Monday, May

29, 2006 is a federal holiday so there will be no trial that day.

8. Motions in limine: The parties filed 31 motions in limine, as follows:

Atmel No. 1, to exclude evidence of any post-December 31, 2001 inquiries Atmel

received regarding the Sumitomo mold compound: This relevance-based objection is overbroad as

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 742 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 7
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

framed. The motion is DENIED, without prejudice to specific objections at trial to specific documents.

Atmel No. 2, to exclude certain internal Seagate documents: This relevance-based

objection to all documents not sent to Atmel in the ordinary course of business is overbroad as framed.

The motion is DENIED, without prejudice to specific objections at trial to specific documents.

Atmel No. 3, to exclude privileged documents (October 2003): DENIED. See also

St. Paul No. 7.

Atmel No. 4, to exclude evidence of three coverage cases (Senstar/Pacific

Digital/Action Tapes) to the extent St. Paul wants to attempt to rescind based on those cases:

GRANTED, and further ordered that evidence concerning these three coverage cases is excluded for

all purposes based on FRE 403.

Atmel No. 5, to exclude Seagate witness deposition testimony from underlying

Seagate action: GRANTED.

Atmel No. 6, to exclude evidence of Atmel’s alleged failure to cooperate with St.

Paul or Royal: The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to exclude evidence concerning failure

to cooperate with Royal; it is DENIED to the extent it seeks to exclude evidence of failure to cooperate

with St. Paul. See also St. Paul No. 13.

Atmel No. 7, to exclude evidence of any settlement communications under FRE 408:

GRANTED; both Atmel and St. Paul are precluded from offering evidence of the content of settlement

discussions between them or with the Seagate parties. This order does not preclude offering evidence

of the fact that St. Paul was invited to attend settlement discussions in the Seagate matter, did attend

such discussions and/or failed to make any payment or contribution to the Seagate settlement. See also

St. Paul No. 3.

Atmel No. 8, to exclude references to California Civil Code Section 2860:

GRANTED.

Atmel No. 9, to preclude St. Paul from offering evidence of damages related to its

counterclaims: GRANTED. St. Paul acknowledges that it will not present any damage evidence on

counterclaims 2, 3, 4 or 5. Those claims will, therefore, fail as a matter of law. Accordingly,

counterclaims 2, 3, 4 and 5 are DISMISSED.

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 742 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Atmel No. 10, to preclude St. Paul from offering requested documents or other

evidence that were not produced in discovery: The parties have stipulated concerning St. Paul trial

exhibit 2002. As to the balance of the motion, it is DENIED, without prejudice to specific objections

to specific documents/evidence at trial.

Atmel No. 11, to preclude St. Paul from introducing evidence or argument that the

Seagate complaint did not raise the potential for covered damages under the St. Paul policy: This

motion is GRANTED exactly as framed: St. Paul may not argue that the Seagate complaint did not

allege damages potentially covered by the commercial general liability and errors and omissions

coverages in the St. Paul policy issued to Atmel. This ruling does not preclude St. Paul witnesses from

explaining their actions subsequent to Atmel’s tender of defense.

Atmel No. 12, to exclude evidence of the Court’s April 18, 2006 order: This motion

was submitted too late for defendant to have an opportunity to file an opposition. Ruling is DEFERRED

until such time as a response is provided by St. Paul.

St. Paul No. 1, to exclude evidence of the Fraud and Misrepresentation Clause:

DENIED. Appropriate limiting instructions will be given when/if they are submitted and necessary.

St. Paul No. 2, to exclude evidence regarding California Insurance Code Section 650

or that rescission was “untimely”: The motion is GRANTED as to any mention of Section

650; the motion is DENIED as to evidence of the timing, timeliness or untimeliness of the rescission.

St. Paul No. 3, to exclude evidence of settlement negotiations and mediations:

GRANTED to this extent: both Atmel and St. Paul are precluded from offering evidence of the content

of settlement discussions between them or with the Seagate parties. This order does not preclude

offering evidence of the fact that St. Paul was invited to attend settlement discussions in the Seagate

matter, did attend such discussions and/or failed to make any payment or contribution to the Seagate

settlement. See also Atmel No. 7.

St. Paul No. 4, to exclude evidence of St. Paul’s litigation conduct: DENIED, without

prejudice to specific objections to specific evidence at trial.

St. Paul No. 5, to exclude evidence regarding St. Paul’s nonrenewal: DENIED as

presented. The motion seeks an order that the parties may not ask “anything at all about St. Paul’s

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 742 Filed 04/27/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

decision to non-renew the policy it issued to Atmel.” That is overbroad. The Court has already ruled

that Atmel may not base a claim of bad faith on St. Paul’s non-renewal of the policy. If and to the extent

that the nonrenewal is relevant to some other point, it may be referred to.

St. Paul No. 6, to exclude expert testimony of Raphael Cotkin: DENIED, without

prejudice to specific objections at trial. No witness will be allowed to testify as to what the law is which

the jury will apply at the end of the case; appropriate limiting instructions to that effect will be given

as needed. However, where the parties’ conduct involved their own evaluation of legal standards, or

where industry standards are illuminated by various legal doctrines, witnesses may so testify. See also

St. Paul No. 16.

St. Paul No. 7, to exclude evidence of Atmel’s requests for return of documents

produced to St. Paul in October 2003: DENIED. See also Atmel No. 3.

St. Paul No. 8, to exclude all evidence of two other St. Paul insureds’ red

phosphorous claims: DENIED.

St. Paul No. 9, to exclude evidence of the Cirrus Logic coverage litigation:

GRANTED, FRE 403.

St. Paul No. 10, to exclude all evidence of St. Paul’s alleged loss ratio on technology

insurance policies: DENIED, without prejudice to specific objections to specific evidence at trial.

St. Paul No. 11, to exclude evidence of two other lawsuits in which St. Paul raised

rescission: GRANTED.

St. Paul No. 12, to exclude all evidence of insurance application forms other than

those submitted by Atmel to St. Paul in December 2001: DENIED as to any other St. Paul application

forms. GRANTED as to any application forms from other companies.

St. Paul No. 13, to exclude evidence of Royal’s conduct in response to tender of the

Seagate claim: The motion seeks to exclude evidence of Royal’s conduct in response to Atmel’s tender

of the Seagate claim, “other than that Royal paid for a portion of Atmel’s defense costs in the Seagate

action, and that Royal contributed money toward Atmel’s settlement of the Seagate action.” To this

extent, the motion is GRANTED. See also Atmel No. 6.

St. Paul’s No. 14, to preclude the parties from introducing evidence or argument

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 742 Filed 04/27/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

that would require counsel to testify at trial: DENIED as framed; the request is vague and

unenforceable. However, the Court does not expect any trial counsel to testify at this trial.

St. Paul No. 15, to exclude Atmel from offering testimony form its witnesses who

were instructed not to answer at deposition: DENIED without prejudice to specific objections to

specific questions at trial. Witnesses will not be allowed to answer questions at trial which they were

instructed not to answer during depositions.

St. Paul No. 16, to exclude witness testimony on legal issues, including coverage and

the duty to defend: DENIED, without prejudice to specific objections at trial. No witness will be

allowed to testify as to what the law is which the jury will apply at the end of the case; appropriate

limiting instructions to that effect will be given as needed. However, where the parties’ conduct

involved their own evaluation of legal standards, or where industry standards are illuminated by various

legal doctrines, witnesses may so testify. See also St. Paul No. 6.

St. Paul No. 17, to exclude evidence of the Atmel securities litigation: GRANTED,

FRE 403.

St. Paul motion to bifurcate trial and to try the rescission and misrepresentation and

concealment claims before trial of the coverage and bad faith claims [Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b)]:

DENIED.

St. Paul’s brief re Court determination of equitable claim for rescission based on

factual findings of jury: DEFERRED, to discuss at the time verdict forms are settled upon.

9. Miscellaneous: The parties shall provide one another 48 hours advance notice of the

witnesses to be called. The parties shall provide one another copies of any demonstrative exhibits to

be used during opening statement, closing argument or witness examination 48 hours in advance. Each

party may have two corporate representatives at counsel table. Otherwise, witnesses are excluded from

trial prior to their testimony.

St. Paul’s motion for determination that there is no E & O coverage for the Seagate settlement,

filed on April 24, 2006, shall not be considered by the Court. This motion, although filed pursuant to

Rule 16, is essentially an untimely summary judgment motion that should have been filed according to

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 742 Filed 04/27/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

the pretrial schedule.

10. Settlement discussions: The parties shall arrange to mediate with a private mediator

prior to trial. The parties shall agree upon a mediator, make arrangements for a mediation date and

inform the Court of same by Friday, April 28, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2006

_____________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 742 Filed 04/27/06 Page 7 of 7