Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04120/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04120-6/pdf.json

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

---

CV-09-4120-CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER BIFURCATING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR BRANDT FEES

LEWI

S

BRISBO

IS

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

4817-0014-4646.3

Rebecca R. Weinreich, State Bar No. 155684

weinreich@lbbslaw.com

Stephen V. Kovarik, State Bar No. 184656

kovarik@lbbslaw.com

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP

221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200

Los Angeles, California 90012

Tel: (213) 250-1800

Fax: (213) 481-0621

Attorneys for Defendants National Union 

Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.

and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

Mary E. McCutcheon, Esq.

Tyler C. Gerking, Esq.

Brett R. Wheeler, Esq.

FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL, LLP

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

Tel: (415) 954-4400

Fax: (415) 954-4480

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Seagate Technology, LLC, Seagate Technology International, 

and Seagate Singapore International Headquarters PTE LTD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC,

a Delaware corporation; SEAGATE

TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

a Cayman Islands Company; SEAGATE

SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL

HEADQUARTERS PTE LTD, a Singapore

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, a

Pennsylvania corporation; INSURANCE

COMPANY OF THE STATE OF

PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania

corporation,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CV-09-4120-CW

The Honorable Claudia Wilken

Courtroom 2

STIPULATION AND ORDER

BIFURCATING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR

BRANDT FEES

Case 4:09-cv-04120-CW Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 4
CV-09-4120-CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER BIFURCATING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR BRANDT FEES

LEWI

S

BRISBO

IS

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

4817-0014-4646.3 -2-

WHEREAS, plaintiffs Seagate Technology, LLC, Seagate Technology International, and

Seagate Singapore International Headquarters PTE LTD (collectively, “Seagate”) have filed a

Complaint against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (“National Union”)

and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (“ISOP”) alleging claims for relief for Breach

of Contract and Tortious Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. See

Docket Item No. 1.

WHEREAS, Seagate seeks the recovery of, among other things, its attorney’s fees (Brandt

fees) incurred in in obtaining policy benefits in this action. See Docket No. 1.

WHEREAS, Seagate contends the amount of its Brandt fees continue to accrue during the

pendency of this action, and the full amount of the fees, if any, to which Seagate is entitled will not

be known until all work, including trial, necessary to obtain the policy benefits Seagate claims to

have been withheld in bad faith has been performed. National Union and ISOP contend that none of

the present litigation could give rise to Brandt fees as a matter of law.

WHEREAS, Seagate, National Union and ISOP believe the most efficient process for

resolving their disputes involves a bifurcated trial with the amount of Brandt fees, if any, due

Seagate being tried, if at all, only if and after the jury returns a verdict including a finding that

National Union and ISOP have breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing such

that Seagate is entitled to Brandt fees.

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, Seagate, National Union and ISOP, by

and through their respective counsel, hereby agree as follows:

1. Seagate, National Union and ISOP stipulate to a bifurcated trial with Seagate’s

entitlement to, and the amount of, Brandt fees being tried, if at all, only if and after the jury returns a

verdict providing a basis for the recovery of Brandt fees. Seagate, National Union and ISOP

propose the following procedure for the resolution of Seagate’s Brandt fee claim:

a. 7 days after the return of the verdict, Seagate will produce to National Union

the evidence in support of its Brandt fee claim;

b. 28 days after the return of the verdict, Seagate will file a brief and expert

report in support of its Brandt fee claim;

Case 4:09-cv-04120-CW Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 4
CV-09-4120-CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER BIFURCATING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR BRANDT FEES

LEWI

S

BRISBO

IS

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

4817-0014-4646.3 -3-

c. National Union and ISOP may depose Seagate’s fact and expert witnesses

within the next 21 days;

d. Within 28 days of Seagate’s submission of a brief and expert report, National

Union and ISOP may file and serve an expert rebuttal report;

e. Within 14 days of National Union’s and ISOP’s expert rebuttal report,

Seagate may take the deposition of National Union’s and ISOP’s expert

witness;

f. 45 days after Seagate’s submission, National Union and ISOP will file a brief

and evidence in opposition to Seagate’s fee claim; and

g. 7 days after National Union’s and ISOP’s submission, Seagate will file a reply

memorandum.

2. The parties will argue Seagate’s Brandt fee claim to the Court.

DATED: August 2, 2010 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By /s/ Stephen V. Kovarik

Rebecca R. Weinreich

Stephen V. Kovarik

Attorneys for Defendants

 National Union Fire Insurance Company of 

Pittsburgh, Pa. and Insurance Company of 

the State of Pennsylvania

DATED: August 2, 2010 FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL, LLP

By /s/ Tyler C. Gerking

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Seagate Technology, LLC, Seagate Technology

International, and Seagate Singapore International

Headquarters PTE LTD

Case 4:09-cv-04120-CW Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 4
CV-09-4120-CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER BIFURCATING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR BRANDT FEES

LEWI

S

BRISBO

IS

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

4817-0014-4646.3 -4-

File’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, §X(B), I attest under penalty of

perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its signatory.

DATED: August 2, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Stephen V. Kovarik 

 Stephen V. Kovarik

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED subject to the Court’s

modification based on trial proceedings. The parties waive any jury trial right on the Brandt fee

issue. 

DATED: 8/3/2010 ____________________________________________

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN

Case 4:09-cv-04120-CW Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 4