Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01593/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01593-0/pdf.json

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

National Union Fire Insurance Co. 

of Pittsburgh, PA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Seagate Technology, Inc.,

Defendant.

 /

NO. C 04-1593 JW 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER

Plaintiffs National Union Fire Insurance Co. ("National") and American International

Underwriters Insurance Company ("AIU") sued Defendant Seagate Technology, Inc. (See Order of

April 4, 2005, Docket Item No. 63, at 1:18-8:15 for the factual background of this lawsuit.) Pursuant

to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(a) ("Rule 60(a)"), National and AIU now move this Court to amend the

following sentence in its April 18, 2005 Order: "Although this Court concluded that National and AIU

wrongly declined to defend Seagate, this Court here concludes that their denial did not amount to a

breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing." (Order of April 18, 2005, Docket Item No. 63,

at 4:23-25; Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order, hereinafter,

"Plaintiffs' Motion," Docket Item No. 68, at 2:9-15.) This Court GRANTS their motion and replaces

the sentence with a new one. 

Rule 60(a) states: "Clerical mistakes in . . . orders . . . and errors therein arising from

oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion

of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders." 

This Court elects to alter the language at issue in order to accommodate the parties and to

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 75 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 3
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

avoid further confusion. As both parties correctly note in their papers, the April 18, 2005 Order does

not reach a holding on whether National and AIU breached their duty to defend. (Plaintiffs' Motion at

3:19-22; Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order, Docket Item No. 73, at

1:21-22.) Accordingly, this Court now amends the sentence at issue to avoid any potential implication

of a judicial determination of legal wrong by National and AIU. This amendment does not, however,

preclude such a determination in the future. 

National's and AIU's motion is GRANTED. This Court replaces the sentence at 4:23-25 in the

April 18, 2005 Order with the following sentence: "Although National and AIU previously declined to

defend Seagate, this Court here concludes that their denial did not amount to a breach of the covenant

of good faith and fair dealing."

Dated: July 11, 2005

04cv1593am-041805ord

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 75 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Archie S. Robinson asr@r-winc.com

Charles A. Reid charles.reid@dbr.com

Cheryl A. Jorgensen Cheryl.jorgensen@dbr.com

Daniel Justin Weinberg dweinberg@orrick.com

John L. Winchester jlw@r-winc.com

Mark R. Weinstein mweinstein@whitecase.com

Robert E. Freitas rfreitas@orrick.com

Dated: July 11, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/s/JWchambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 3:04-cv-01593-WHA Document 75 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 3