Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082-7/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

 Atmel filed its letter brief on August 1, 2005. St. Paul filed its response on August 5, 2005.

2

“Request No. 25 seeks only St. Paul’s internal standards for assessing its duty to defend.” “Request

No. 30 seeks St. Paul’sinternalpolicies, manuals, and/or handbooks (not actualclaim files) reflecting itsinternal

assessment of material information St. Paul needs for evaluating whether to underwrite such a policy.” 

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,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-04082 SI

ORDER GRANTING ATMEL’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

By letter briefs,1 the parties bring before the Court a dispute regarding Atmel’s First Set of Requests

for Production of Documents. St. Paul asserts that it has made every attempt to produce the necessary

documents and continues to produce relevant documents. St. Paul also argues that it has already produced

a significant number of documents.

It is unclear if St. Paul objects to Requests Nos. 25 and 30, as it states that the requests were “so

poorly drafted that compliance has been nearly impossible.” The Court has reviewed these requests. See

AtmelEx. A. Atmel, in its letter brief, clarifiesitsrequest.2 The Court finds these clarifications to be sufficient.

St. Paul must comply with these requests.

St. Paul does not contest the validity of Atmel’s request. Instead, it argues that it has made every

attempt to produce all documents responsive to the requests. St. Paul has now had plenty oftime to produce

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 201 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 4
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

responsive documents. Therefore, the Court ORDERS St. Paul to produce all documents relevant to Atmel’s

First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents on or before September 16, 2005. If St. Paul has

produced all relevant documents, it should submit a sworn statement to that effect to Atmel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 201 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 4
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

 Atmel filed its letter brief on August 1, 2005. St. Paul filed its response on August 5, 2005.

2

“Request No. 25 seeks only St. Paul’s internal standards for assessing its duty to defend.” “Request

No. 30 seeks St. Paul’sinternalpolicies, manuals, and/or handbooks (not actualclaim files) reflecting itsinternal

assessment of material information St. Paul needs for evaluating whether to underwrite such a policy.” 

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,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-04082 SI

ORDER GRANTING ATMEL’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

By letter briefs,1 the parties bring before the Court a dispute regarding Atmel’s First Set of Requests

for Production of Documents. St. Paul asserts that it has made every attempt to produce the necessary

documents and continues to produce relevant documents. St. Paul also argues that it has already produced

a significant number of documents.

It is unclear if St. Paul objects to Requests Nos. 25 and 30, as it states that the requests were “so

poorly drafted that compliance has been nearly impossible.” The Court has reviewed these requests. See

AtmelEx. A. Atmel, in its letter brief, clarifiesitsrequest.2 The Court finds these clarifications to be sufficient.

St. Paul must comply with these requests.

St. Paul does not contest the validity of Atmel’s request. Instead, it argues that it has made every

attempt to produce all documents responsive to the requests. St. Paul has now had plenty oftime to produce

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 201 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 4
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

responsive documents. Therefore, the Court ORDERS St. Paul to produce all documents relevant to Atmel’s

First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents on or before September 16, 2005. If St. Paul has

produced all relevant documents, it should submit a sworn statement to that effect to Atmel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 201 Filed 09/06/05 Page 4 of 4