Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00385/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00385-20/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

Requests for Production Nos. 26-28, 30, 34, 36, 46 and 84. 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 requests for production. 

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

disputed Requests for Production of Documents, along with Plaintiff’s Requests for Production

attached as exhibits.

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. 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 12
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

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 Requests for Production

1. Request for Production No. 26

Revised Request for Production No. 26 states as follows: “Any DOCUMENTS relating to

defense counsel or panel counsel to whom YOU assigned the defense of any claims under policies

providing errors and omission insurance and involving “wrongful acts” against YOUR insureds with

proceedings in California, Illinois or the United Kingdom from 2001 to present.”

Plaintiff’s counsel states that these documents are necessary to respond to Defendant’s

challenge of the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff. 

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

asserted privilege although some aspects of the fee arrangements are not privileged and subject to

discovery.

Defendant responded to the Request for Production No. 26 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly

burdensome. St. Paul further objects to this request on the ground that it

seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery. St.

Paul also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by

the attorney-client privilege.

Although Defendant argues that the documents are over broad, unduly burdensome and 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, Plaintiff responded that these documents are necessary to

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 12
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

prove the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and other fees incurred. Consequently, the Court finds

that Request for Production No. 26 is overly broad and should be limited to the fee arrangements

and billing statements for claims of errors and omission insurance during inception year of 2001 to

the year of denial in 2003. These fee arrangements and billing statements should merely provide a

general description of work done, which are not privileged and relevant to the reasonableness of fees

incurred. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce only the documents accounting

for fee arrangements and billing statements for claims of errors and omission insurance from 2001 to

2003. The Court also ORDERS the Defendant to provide an attorney-client privileged log for the

information sought that is privileged. If Defendant cannot obtain all of the information, Defendant

shall submit an affidavit attesting that it has produced all information relating to fees providing

errors and omission insurance. Should the parties continue to dispute the Request for Production

No. 26, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

2. Request for Production No. 27

Request for Production No. 27 states as follows: “Any guidelines, practices or procedures

under which YOU sought to have defense counsel or panel counsel defending your claims against

YOUR insured operate, including without limitation any litigation management guidelines, from

2001 to the present.” 

Plaintiff’s counsel claims these documents are necessary because it is necessary to respond to

Defendant’s challenge of the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff.

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

asserted privilege although some aspects of the fee arrangements are not privileged and subject to

discovery.

Defendant responded to Request for Production No. 27:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad. St. Paul

further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information which is

outside the scope of discovery. St. Paul also objects to this request to the

event it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel states that the guidelines

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 3 of 12
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

requested are not at issue because the claim was already denied and Plaintiff’s counsel in the

underlying action did not operate under St. Paul’s guidelines.

Although Defendant argues that the documents are over broad and protected by the attorneyclient privilege, Plaintiff responded that these documents are necessary to prove the reasonableness

of attorneys’ fees and other fees incurred. Therefore, the Court finds that Request for Production

No. 27 is overly broad and should be limited to the extent not privileged beginning at the inception

year of 2001 to the year of denial in 2003. The Court finds years subsequent to 2003 are not

relevant to the present case. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce the guidelines,

practices or procedures limited to 2001 to 2003. The Court also ORDERS the Defendant to provide

an attorney-client privileged log for the information sought that is privileged. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Request for Production No. 27, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and

confer.

3. Request for Production No. 28

Request for Production No. 28 states as follows: “All DOCUMENTS relating to any dispute

between YOU and any other PERSON regarding the applicability, application, enforceability or

enforcement of any litigation management guidelines or similar DOCUMENTS during the period of

2001 to the present.” 

Plaintiff’s counsel claims these documents are necessary because it is necessary to respond to

Defendant’s challenge of the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff.

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

asserted privilege although some aspects of the fee arrangements are not privileged and subject to

discovery.

Defendant responded to Request for Production No. 28 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly

burdensome. St. Paul further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks

information which is outside of the permissible scope of discovery. 

Although Defendant argues that the documents are over broad, unduly burdensome and

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 4 of 12
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

outside the permissible scope of discovery, Plaintiff responded that these documents are necessary to

prove the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and other fees incurred. Therefore, the Court finds that

Request for Production No. 28 is overly broad and should be limited to only claims of error and

omission insurance during inception year of 2001 to the year of denial in 2003. Accordingly, the

Court ORDERS Defendant to produce only the documents involving claims of error and omission

insurance during inception year of 2001 to the year of denial in 2003. If Defendant cannot obtain all

of the information, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it has produced all information

relating to fees providing errors and omission insurance. Should the parties continue to dispute the

Request for Production No. 26, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

4. Request for Production No. 30

Request for Production No. 30 states as follows: “All DOCUMENTS related to any claims

by any of YOUR insureds in the software or other technology industries, between 2001 and the

present, for errors and omissions insurance coverage for third party claims asserted against the

insured(s) by PERSONS other than consumers, including without limitation claims asserted by one

or more vendors to the insured(s).” 

Plaintiff claims that, they are entitled to discovery on St. Paul’s handling of claims involving

its insureds’ vendors and other non-consumers, to determine whether and to what extent the

Defendant has adhered to its proffered interpretation, and to present evidence to the jury to the

extent the Defendant presents at trial.

Defendant responded to Request for Production No. 30 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad.. St. Paul

further objects on the ground that the term “consumers” is undefined and

vague and ambiguous. St. Paul further objects to this request on the ground

that it seeks documents in violation of privacy rights of third-party St. Paul

insureds founded in or protected by the United States Constitution, the

California Constitution, the common law and/or any applicable rule,

regulation, or, statutory authority. St. Paul further objects to this request on

the ground that it seeks information which is outside the permissible scope of

discovery.

In the parties joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel argues that, “the issues in

this case are to be decided based on this policy and on the facts of this claim, not based on how

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 5 of 12
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

third-party claims may be handled by St. Paul. Moreover, Defendant’s counsel claims that “there is

no reasonable way for St. Paul to even search for such issue-specific documents among St. Paul’s

huge volume of files, which are not organized in a way that would facilitate this.” 

Although Defendant argues that the documents are over broad and outside the permissible

scope of discovery, Plaintiff responded that these documents are necessary to determine whether and

to what extent Defendant has adhered to its proffered interpretation. Consequently, the Court finds

that Request for Production No. 30 is overly broad and should be limited to claims of errors and

omission insurance brought by vendors or other non-consumers during inception year of 2001 to the

year of denial in 2003, which are not stamped as “confidential.” Accordingly, the Court ORDERS

Defendant to produce only the documents related to any claims by the Defendant in the software or

other technology industries, between 2001 to 2003, for errors and omissions insurance coverage for

third party claims which are not stamped as “confidential”. Should the parties continue to dispute

the Request for Production No. 30, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

5. Request for Production No. 34

Request for Production No. 34 states as follows: “All DOCUMENTS related to any third

party claims under errors and omissions policies (or portions of policies) by any of YOUR insureds

between 2001 and the present in which YOU have paid, have agreed to pay, or have been ordered to

pay any amounts, including without limitation for defense fees and costs, incurred by the insured

allegedly notified YOU of the ‘claim.’”

Plaintiff’s counsel claims these documents are necessary because this request seeks

discovery on situations in which St. Paul has agreed or has been required to pay “pre-tender” fees.

According to Plaintiff’s counsel these documents go directly to St. Paul’s own understanding of and

practice regarding when such “pre-tender” fees must be paid. 

Defendant responded to Revised Request for Production No. 34 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome in that there is no reasonable way for St. Paul to perform a search

of the large quantity of claims it has handled since 2001 in search of

information responsive to this request. St. Paul further objects to this request

on the ground that it seeks documents in violation of third-party privacy rights

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 6 of 12
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

founded in or protected by the United States Constitution, the California

Constitution, the common law and/or any applicable rule, regulation, or

statutory authority. St. Paul further objects to this request on the ground that

it seeks information which is outside the permissible scope of discovery. St.

Paul also objected to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by

the attorney-client privilege. 

Although Defendant argues that the documents are over broad, unduly burdensome and

protected by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff responded that these documents are necessary and

highly relevant to the Defendant’s own understanding of and practice regarding when such “pretender” expenses must be paid. Consequently, the Court finds that Request for Production No. 34 is

overly broad and should be limited to the extent not privileged documents during inception year of

2001 to the year of denial in 2003. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce only the

documents related to any third party claims under errors and omissions policies between 2001to 

2003 including without limitation for defense fees and costs to the extent not privileged. The Court

also ORDERS the Defendant to provide an attorney-client privileged log for the information sought

that is privileged. If Defendant cannot obtain all of the information, Defendant shall submit an

affidavit attesting that it has produced all information relating to claims and fees providing errors

and omission insurance. Should the parties continue to dispute the Request for Production No. 34,

the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer.

6. Request for Production No. 36

Request for Production No. 36 states as follows: “All DOCUMENTS related to any third

party claims under errors and omissions policies (or portions of policies) between 2001 and the

present in which YOU have paid, have agreed to pay, or have been ordered to pay any amounts

incurred by the insured in connection with lawsuits, counterclaims and affirmative claims filed or

brought by the insured(s), including without limitation, lawsuits, counterclaims and affirmative

claims in which the insured(s) seek(s) declaratory relief.” 

Plaintiff’s counsel claims Adobe is entitled to discovery on other instances in which

Defendant has agreed or been required to pay defense expenses in situations where its insured was

the putative plaintiff or counter-plaintiff. 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 7 of 12
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

Defendant responded to Request for Production No. 36:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome in that there is no reasonable way for St. Paul to perform a search

of the large quantity of claims it has handled since 2001 in search of

information responsive to this request. St. Paul further objects to this request

on the ground that it seeks documents in violation of third-party privacy rights

founded in or protected by the United States Constitution, the California

Constitution, the common law and/or any applicable rule, regulation, or

statutory authority. St. Paul further objects to this request on the ground that

it seeks information which is outside the permissible scope of discovery. St.

Paul also objected to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by

the attorney-client privilege.

Although Defendant argues that the documents are over broad, unduly burdensome

and protected by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff responded that they are necessary in preparation

for litigation at trial. Consequently, the Court finds that Request for Production No. 36 is overly

broad and should be limited to the extent not privileged documents during inception year of 2001 to

the year of denial in 2003. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce only the

documents to the extent not privileged related to any third party claims under errors and omissions

policies between 2001 to 2003 in which the Defendant paid, agreed to pay or have been ordered to

pay any amounts incurred by the insured in connection with lawsuits, counterclaims and affirmative

claims filed or brought by the insured. The Court also ORDERS the Defendant to provide an

attorney-client privileged log for the information sought that is privileged. If Defendant cannot

obtain all of the information, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it has produced all

information relating to claims and fees providing errors and omission insurance. Should the parties

continue to dispute the Request for Production No. 36, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and

confer.

7. Request for Production No. 46

Request for Production No. 46 states as follows: “All DOCUMENTS constituting or relating

to any underwriting manuals, checklists, guidance, requirements or best practices of any kind which

YOU maintain or have maintained at any time since 2001 applicable to errors and omissions

insurance, general liability insurance or any other form of insurance provided under the POLICY.” 

Plaintiff’s counsel states that this information is necessary because this policy is the “primary

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 8 of 12
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

policy form at issue here.” Additionally, the documents explain “St. Paul’s understanding of the

very E&O form incorporated into the Adobe policy, regardless of whether the document was

generated before or after the issuance of the policy.” 

Defendant responded to Request for Production No. 46 as follows:

St. Paul objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad in that it

seeks documents for a time period which does not entirely relate to the claim

and policy at issue and it seeks documents for policies other than the

Technology Errors and Omissions policy at issue in this case. For these same

reasons, it seeks documents which are outside the permissible scope of

discovery and St. Paul objects to the request on that ground. Without waiving

ESC objects in that this request is not , and subject to, these objections, St.

Paul responds that it will produce the following documents:

1. the Technology Processing manual [SPTP 000001-SPTP 00205];

2. The Technology Coding manual [SPTC 00001-SPTC 00060}; and 

3. Technical Errors and Omissions Liability Information dated 12/17/01 [SPTEO 000001- SP-TEO 000004].

In the parties’ joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel states that “St. Paul

already provided Adobe with the underwriting manuals and best practices documents which applied

to the policy at issue in this case.” Further, Defendant’s counsel argues “this manual is used for

rating policies and it would have no relation to the underwriting of the policy at issue years before or

to claims handling.” Additionally, Defendant’s counsel claims that “St. Paul produced all nonprivileged documents called for by the order months ago.”

The Court finds that 2001 to 2003 are the relevant years to the policy at issue in this case. As

Plaintiff’s claims is for non-coverage in 2003, therefore, 2004 to the present is not relevant. Further,

Defendant states that they already provided the Plaintiff with the relevant materials. Thus,

Defendant need not provide further documentation to Request for Production No. 46. Although, the

Court ORDERS the Defendant to provide the Technology Processing manual [SPTP 000001-SPTP

00205], Technology Coding manual [SPTC 00001-SPTC 00060} and Technical Errors and

Omissions Liability Information [SP-TEO 000001-SP-TEO 000004] from 2001 to 2003. 

8. Request for Production No. 84

Request for Production No. 84 states as follows: “All DOCUMENTS relating in any way to

Josh Agle, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al., United States District Court for the Central

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 9 of 12
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

District of California No. SACV 07-756 DOC(RNBx)(‘Agle”), including without limitation any

claim for insurance coverage for Agle.

Plaintiff’s counsel states that this information is necessary because “St. Paul’s handling of

the Agle claim-which may directly mention and involve Agfa/ITC claim, the plaintiffs of the

underlying action, which may reveal St. Paul’s posture towards Adobe’s claims for coverage.” 

Defendant responded to Request for Production No. 84 as follows:

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

ambiguous, outside of the permissible scope of discovery and may seek

documents that are protected by third-party privacy rights.

In the parties’ joint meet and conferral letter, Defendant’s counsel states that “St. Paul’s

handling of any claim relating to Josh Agle, Inc. has no bearing on the coverage of issues in this

case.”

Although Plaintiff responded that they are necessary in preparation for litigation at trial; 

Defendant argues that the documents are over broad, vague, ambiguous, outside the permissible

scope of discovery and may seek documents that are protected by third-party rights unduly

burdensome and protected by third party privilege. Consequently, the Court finds that Request for

Production No. 84 is overly broad and outside the scope of permissible discovery. Thus, Defendant

need not provide further documentation to Request for Production No. 84.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court ORDERS as follows:

1) Plaintiff shall limit the scope of Request for Production No. 26 to 2001-2003. Defendant

shall then respond to Revised Request for Production No. 26, providing only the documents

accounting for fee arrangements and billing statements for claims of errors and omission

insurance. Defendant shall also provide an attorney-client privileged log for the information

sought that is privileged. If Defendant cannot obtain all of the information, Defendant shall

submit an affidavit attesting that it has produced all information relating to fees providing

errors and omission insurance. 

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 10 of 12
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

2) Plaintiff shall limit the scope of Request for Production No. 27 to 2001-2003. Defendant

shall then respond to Revised Request for Production No. 27, providing the documents

limited to the extent not privileged. Defendant shall also provide an attorney-client

privileged log for the information sought that is privileged.

3) Plaintiff shall limit the scope of Request for Production No. 28 to 2001-2003. Defendant

shall respond to Revised Request for Production 28 to produce only the documents involving

claims of error and omission insurance. If Defendant cannot obtain all of the information,

Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it has produced all information relating to

fees providing errors and omission insurance.

4) Plaintiff shall limit the scope of Request for Production No. 30 to 2001-2003. Defendant

shall respond to Revised Request for Production 30 to produce only the documents related to

any claims by the Defendant in the software or other technology industries.

5) Plaintiff shall limit the scope of Request for Production No. 34 to 2001-2003. Defendant

shall respond to Revised Request for Production 34 by providing all documents related to

any third party claims under errors and omissions policies. Defendant shall also provide an

attorney-client privileged log for the information sought that is privileged. If Defendant

cannot obtain all of the information, Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it has

produced all information relating to fees providing errors and omission insurance.

6) Plaintiff shall limit the scope of Request for Production No. 36 to 2001-2003. Defendant

shall respond to Revised Request for Production 36 by providing all documents to produce

only the documents to the extent not privileged related to any third party claims under errors

and omissions. Defendant shall also provide an attorney-client privileged log for the

information sought that is privileged. If Defendant cannot obtain all of the information,

Defendant shall submit an affidavit attesting that it has produced all information relating to

fees providing errors and omission insurance. 

7) Defendant shall produce the Technology Processing manual [SPTP 000001-SPTP 00205],

Technology Coding manual [SPTC 00001-SPTC 00060} and Technical Errors and

Case 3:07-cv-00385-JSW Document 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 11 of 12
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

Omissions Liability Information [SP-TEO 000001-SP-TEO 000004] from 2001 to 2003.

8) Defendant need not provide further documentation to Request for Production No. 84.

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 133 Filed 04/09/08 Page 12 of 12