Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082-19/pdf.json

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

---

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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE

INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4082 SI (BZ)

FIFTH DISCOVERY ORDER

DENYING ATMEL'S MOTION TO

COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY

REGARDING OTHER RED

PHOSPHORUS CLAIMS

Having read the papers filed by both sides, I find that

there is no need for oral argument. 

The genesis of this dispute is Atmel's Request for

Production of Documents No. 33, about which there was an

earlier dispute. I resolved this dispute in my Third

Discovery Order in which I ordered St. Paul to produce

documents responsive to this Request consistent with the

parties' resolution of the dispute over Interrogatory 16,

which sought related information, at their October 10, 2005

meet and confer conference. St. Paul’s objections to the

Third Discovery Order were denied by Judge Illston on

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 399 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 3
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

November 14, 2005. 

Atmel is not claiming that St. Paul failed to produce

documents as ordered. Instead, it is claiming that it has a

need for discovery outside the scope of the compromise it

reached with St. Paul on October 10, 2005. In its November 8,

2005 letter alerting the court of this dispute, it identified

the discovery it now seeks as follows:

“Atmel asks the Court to order that St. Paul

provide the following: (1) Diane Holtog for deposition; 

(2) unredacted copies of all coverage correspondence 

from January 1, 2001 to the present; (3) the entire

unredacted claims files for Insured #1 and Insured #2; 

(4) the limits, deductibles, and coverage period for

Insured #1 and Insured #2; (5) further depositions of

Judi Lamble, Craig Lapsley, and Ken Falvey should the

documents indicate that these individuals had relevant

knowledge.

In my opinion, allowing the requested discovery would be

tantamount to reopening discovery, which only Judge Illston

can do. Nor would I be willing to recommend that she do so at

this late date. Discovery has long been closed. Based on the

record before me, in a case which has been as hotly contested

as this one and in which parties seemingly have left no stone

unturned, I cannot agree that Atmel was not or should not have

been aware until recently of the possibility that St. Paul

might have information about red phosphorus claims made by

other insureds which predated Atmel’s application. Given the

tenacity with which it has pursued such information, its

failure to obtain prior to the close of discovery the

information it now seeks, and indeed, its reaching a

compromise which did not require St. Paul to produce the

requested information, cut against the reopening of discovery. 

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 399 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 3
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

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Atmel's

Motion To Compel Further Discovery Regarding Other Red

Phosphorus Claims is DENIED.

Dated: December 13, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\ATMEL CORP\DISC5.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 399 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 3