Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00198/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00198-30/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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-0198 JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING ST. PAUL’S MOTION TO

COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (AND RELATED

REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS)

On March 23, 2010, Defendant St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul” or

“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Requests for Admission (and

Related Requests for Documents). Plaintiffs opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers 1

submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without oral argument. 

Based on the moving, opposition and reply papers submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, because the discovery

sought is relevant to the choice of law issues raised by Defendant. Absent agreement of the parties

or further order of this court to the contrary, Plaintiffs shall supplement the subject discovery

Case 5:06-cv-00198-JW Document 204 Filed 05/03/10 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

A proposition that is questionable in light of the fact that choice of law is determined on 2

an issue by issue basis. Thus, just because California law may govern the issue of whether or not a bad

faith claim may be asserted when a policy does not provide coverage by itsterms, it does not necessarily

follow that California law must govern all other issues related to the bad faith claim when it is later

determined that the policy did in fact provide coverage.

ORDER, page 2

responses and document production within two weeks of this order.

In the present motion, Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff America Online, Inc. to respond to

St. Paul’s Request for Admissions (Set One) Nos. 1-7 and Request for Production (Set Two) No. 19,

and to compel Plaintiff Netscape Communication Corporation to respond to St. Paul’s Request for

Admissions (Set One) Nos. 1-10 and Request for Production (Set Two) No. 19. St. Paul argues that

this discovery is relevant to choice of law determinations with respect to remaining issues in the case

related to the bad faith claims and prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs contend that Judge Ware already

determined that California law applies to this case, and that, in any event, St. Paul has not shown that

the action contains a viable choice of law issue. This objection is the sole basis for Plaintiffs’

opposition to Defendant’s motion.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Judge Ware’s prior order did not determine that California

law applies to “this case,” or even that it applies to their bad faith claims. The only express choice of

law determinations in Judge Ware’s October 10, 2007 order (the “Order”) were that California law

applies to contract interpretation and to the duty to defend. While Judge Ware cited a California case

when he sua sponte dismissed Plaintiffs’ bad faith claims, he did not make any actual finding with

regard to choice of law for all of the issues related to those claims.

As noted by Defendant, choice of law is determined on an issue by issue basis, not a claim by

claim basis. See S. A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense v. Boeing Co., 641 F.2d 746, 749

(1981), citing Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 61 Cal.App.3d 501, 518-19

(1976) (discrete issues, such as product liability substantive law, indemnity, and contribution

between defendants, require separate choice of law analysis). To the extent a choice of law

determination is implied by Judge’s Ware’s citation to California law in dismissing the bad faith

claim, that implication can only extend to the specific issue decided – whether or not a bad faith

claim may be asserted when a policy does not provide coverage by its terms. 

Moreover, even if the Order would otherwise be “law of the case,” the Ninth Circuit 2

Case 5:06-cv-00198-JW Document 204 Filed 05/03/10 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

ORDER, page 3

reversed the portion of the Order upon which Judge Ware based his dismissal of the bad faith claim.

As long as there is a dispute between the parties regarding which state’s law applies to

various issues regarding Plaintiffs’ bad faith claims, and to prejudgment interest, information

relevant to the parties’ choice of law dispute is discoverable.

Because Defendant’s motion seeks discovery of relevant information and Plaintiffs have not

shown the discovery is otherwise objectionable, an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond to the

discovery is warranted.

Dated: May 3, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00198-JW Document 204 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3