Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00385/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00385-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

ADOBE SYSTEMS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.,

Defendant. /

No. C07-00385 JSW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the parties’ joint meet and conferral letter filed on February 8, 2008,

regarding disputed revised production of documents. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and Defendant are unable to agree regarding Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s first

set of Special Interrogatories Nos. 5-16. The parties attest that counsel met and conferred in person

on January 25 and February 7, 2008 and were unable to come to agreement on the sufficiency of the

responses to the Special Interrogatories. 

On February 8, 2008, the parties submitted their joint meet and conferral letter regarding

disputed Special Interrogatories, along with Plaintiff’s Requests for Production attached as exhibits.

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 30
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

III. DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) states:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is

relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence,

description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents,

or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having

knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. 

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(I), (ii),

and (iii).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I) through (iii) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted

under these rules and by any local rule shall be limited by the court if it

determines that: (I) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient,

less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had

ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought;

or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,

the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation,

and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. 

Legal Analysis

 

A. Disputed First Set of Special Interrogatories

1. Special Interrogatory No. 5

 First Set Special Interrogatory No. 5 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all individuals who

drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 1 to the REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes the Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically,

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 30
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

“(1)‘Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and

(4) ‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel

believes Defendant should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who

participated in preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 5 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and seeks

information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of discovery. Without

waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. Paul does not know with certainty

who all of the people were who participated in the preparation of the document

approximately seven years ago. However, St. Paul believes that those participating in the

preparation or review of this document (other than the cover sheet, which appears to have

been prepared by Barbara Zielinski) would be included Carol Beatty and Patrick McCoy and

possibly Barry Butenhoff. 

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the three individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 5. Further, those three deposed, Ms. Beatty, Mr. McCoy and Mr.

Butenhoff provided their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had in

preparing the documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court

finds that the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would

be unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel

to review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”;

(2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 5, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 3 of 30
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

2. Special Interrogatory No. 6

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 6 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all individuals who

drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 2 to the REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 6 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous 

and seeks information which is irrelevant and outside of the permissible scope 

of discovery. Without waiving these directions, St. Paul responds as follows: 

St. Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who 

participated in the preparation of this document approximately seven years 

ago. However, St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation 

or review of this document probably included Barry Butenhoff, someone 

in St. Paul’s filing unit and Patrick McCoy.”

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 4 of 30
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

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “probably” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the two individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 6. Further, those two deposed, Mr. McCoy and Mr. Butenhoff provided

their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had in preparing the

documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court finds that the

Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would be

unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to

review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2)

“St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 6, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

3. Special Interrogatory No. 7

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 7 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 3 to the REQUESTS FOR

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 5 of 30
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

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 7 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation or review of this 

document probably included Barry Butenhoff, someone in St. Paul’s Form 

Support Services division and Patrick McCoy. 

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “probably” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 6 of 30
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

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the two individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 7. Further, those two deposed, Mr. Butenhoff and Mr. McCoy provided

their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had in preparing the

documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court finds that the

Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would be

unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to

review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2)

“St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 7, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

4. Special Interrogatory No. 8

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 8 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 4 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 7 of 30
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 8

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 8 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation or review of this 

document possibly included Barry Butenhoff, Patrick McCoy and/or Carol Beatty. 

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “possibly” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the three individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 8 of 30
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 9

Special Interrogatory No. 8. Further, those three deposed, Mr. Butenhoff, Mr. McCoy and Ms.

Beatty, provided their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had in

preparing the documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court

finds that the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would

be unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel

to review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”;

(2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 8, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

5. Special Interrogatory No. 9

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 8 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 5 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 9 of 30
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 10

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 9 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation or review of this 

document probably included Carol Beatty and Patrick McCoy and possibly 

included Barry Butenhoff. 

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “probably” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the three individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 9. Further, those three deposed, Ms. Beatty, Mr. McCoy and Mr.

Butenhoff, provided their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had

in preparing the documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court

finds that the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 10 of 30
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 11

be unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel

to review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”;

(2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 9, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

6. Special Interrogatory No. 10

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 10 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 6 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 11 of 30
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 12

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 10 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation or review of this 

document possibly included Carol Beatty, Patrick McCoy and/or Barry Butenhoff. 

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “possibly” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the three individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 10. Further, those three deposed, Ms. Beatty, Mr. McCoy and Mr.

Butenhoff, provided their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had

in preparing the documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court

finds that the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would

be unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel

to review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”;

(2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 12 of 30
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 13

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 10, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

7. Special Interrogatory No. 11

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 11 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 7 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 11 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 13 of 30
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 14

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation or review of this 

document possibly included Carol Beatty, Patrick McCoy and/or Barry Butenhoff. 

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “possibly” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the three individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 11. Further, those three deposed, Mr. Butenhoff, Mr. McCoy and Ms.

Beatty, provided their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had in

preparing the documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court

finds that the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would

be unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel

to review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”;

(2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 14 of 30
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 15

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 11, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

8. Special Interrogatory No. 12

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 12 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 8 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 12 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation or review of this 

document possibly included Carol Beatty, Patrick McCoy and/or Barry Butenhoff. 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 15 of 30
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 16

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “possibly” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the three individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 12. Further, those three deposed, Ms. Beatty, Mr. McCoy and Mr.

Butenhoff, provided their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had

in preparing the documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court

finds that the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would

be unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel

to review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”;

(2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 12, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

9. Special Interrogatory No. 13

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 13 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 16 of 30
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 17

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 9 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 13 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation or review of this 

document possibly included Carol Beatty, Patrick McCoy and/or Barry Butenhoff. 

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “possibly” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 17 of 30
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 18

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the three individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 13. Further, those three deposed, Ms. Beatty, Mr. McCoy and Mr.

Butenhoff, provided their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they and others had

in preparing the documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court

finds that the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would

be unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel

to review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”;

(2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 13, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

10. Special Interrogatory No. 14

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 14 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 10 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 18 of 30
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 19

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 14 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that that Barry Butenhoff may have prepared the document. 

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the one individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 14. Further, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Mr. Butenhoff on Nov. 9,

and the Plaintiff could have questioned him about the documents but the Plaintiff decided to drop

that deposition. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court finds that

the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would be

unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 19 of 30
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 20

review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2)

“St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 14, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

11. Special Interrogatory No. 15

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 15 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 11 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 20 of 30
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 21

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 15 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that Barry Butenhoff may have prepared the document. 

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the one individuals identified in the Defendant’s response to

Special Interrogatory No. 15. Further, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Mr. Butenhoff on Nov. 9,

and the Plaintiff could have questioned him about the documents but the Plaintiff decided to drop

that deposition. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(I), the Court finds that

the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other further responses would be

unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to

review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2)

“St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to

determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing the documents. If

there are additional names of individuals involved the Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge

those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 6, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 21 of 30
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 22

12. Special Interrogatory No. 16

First Set Special Interrogatory No. 16 states as follows: “IDENTIFY all

individuals who drafted, authored, approved or contributed to Exhibit 12 to the REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue– all of which the Court ordered Defendant to produce in its July 30, 2007 Order. 

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that Defendant failed

to adequately answer the interrogatory, by qualifying the response by stating the each person “may

have been” involved in preparing the document, or “possibly” or “probably” was. Additionally,

Plaintiff’s counsel believes Defendant should investigate its privilege log, specifically, “(1)‘Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference’; (2) ‘St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors &

Omissions policy comparison’; (3) ‘Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4)

‘revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents.’” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant

should interview Mr. McCoy and Ms. Beatty to determine if they recall who participated in

preparing the documents.

Defendant responded to the Interrogatory No. 16 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and 

seeks information which is irrelevant and outside the permissible scope of 

discovery. Without waiving these objections, St. Paul responds as follows: St. 

Paul does not know with certainty who all of the people were who participated 

in the preparation of the document approximately seven years ago. However, 

St. Paul believes that those participating in the preparation or review of this 

document possibly included Carol Beatty, Barry Butenhoff, Patrick McCoy 

and/or Robert Ditmore. 

In parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel further argues Defendant has

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 22 of 30
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 23

already provided complete responses, and the terminology “possibly” appropriately reflects the

degree of uncertainty.

Although Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary because they are the

Defendant’s drafting history and interpretive documents regarding the Defendant’s insurance policy

at issue, Defendant responded that they already provided complete responses. Further, Defendant

claims Plaintiff has already deposed the three individuals out of the four identified in the

Defendant’s response to Special Interrogatory No. 16. Further, those three deposed, Ms. Beatty, Mr.

McCoy and Mr. Butenhoff, provided their best recollection as to the roles and involvement that they

and others had in preparing the documents. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(b)(2)(I), the Court finds that the Defendant already provided complete responses and any other

further responses would be unreasonably duplicative. However, the Court ORDERS the Defendant

and Defendant’s counsel to review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power Point Presentation at

Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology Errors & Omission policy

comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast

Underwriting Facts’ training documents” to determine whether there are other possible individuals

involved in the preparing the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the

Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain

any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of

individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 16, the Court

ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court ORDERS as follows:

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 23 of 30
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 24

1) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those 

names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall

submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot find any other names of individuals

involved. Should the parties continue to dispute the Interrogatory No. 6, the Court

ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

2) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot

obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot

find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Interrogatory No. 7, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

3) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1)

“Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 24 of 30
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 25

Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training

documents” to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the

preparing the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the

Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant

cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it

cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to

dispute the Interrogatory No. 8, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

4) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot

obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot

find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Interrogatory No. 9, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

5) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 25 of 30
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 26

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot

obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot

find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Interrogatory No. 10, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

6) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot

obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot

find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Interrogatory No. 5, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

7) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot

obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 26 of 30
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 27

find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Interrogatory No. 11, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

8) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot

obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot

find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Interrogatory No. 12, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

9) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot

obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot

find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Interrogatory No. 13, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 27 of 30
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 28

10) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1)

“Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb

Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors &

Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training

documents” to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the

preparing the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the

Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant

cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it

cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to

dispute the Interrogatory No. 14, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

11) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1) “Power

Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb Technology

Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & OmissionsTraining Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training documents”

to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the preparing

the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the Court

ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant cannot

obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it cannot

find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Interrogatory No. 15, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

12) Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall review its privileged logs entries (1)

“Power Point Presentation at Galileo Agents Conference”; (2) “St. Paul/Chubb

Technology Errors & Omission policy comparison”; (3) “Technology Errors & 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 28 of 30
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 29

 Omissions-Training Issues”; and (4) “revisions to ‘Fast Underwriting Facts’ training

documents” to determine whether there are other possible individuals involved in the

preparing the documents. If there are additional names of individuals involved the

Court ORDERS the Defendant to divulge those names to the Plaintiff. If Defendant

cannot obtain any more names, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it

cannot find any other names of individuals involved. Should the parties continue to

dispute the Interrogatory No. 16, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2008 ___________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 29 of 30
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

30

30

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 134 Filed 04/09/08 Page 30 of 30