Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03044/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03044-12/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JSR MICRO, INC., 

Plaintiff, No. C 09-3044 PJH

v. ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

OBJECTIONS TO JUNE 14 ORDER

QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, RE MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendant.

_______________________________/

The court is in receipt of defendant’s objections to the June 14, 2010 non-dispositive

order of the Magistrate Judge in connection with plaintiff’s motion to compel, and has

reviewed the objections and the underlying documents submitted in connection with those

objections. 

Upon review of the April 8, 2010 meet and confer transcript in particular, the court

concludes that the transcript does disclose the existence of an agreement between the

parties, wherein plaintiff conceded to take the underlying motion to compel off calendar,

conditioned upon defendant’s compliance with the disclosure of certain requirements

discussed therein (e.g., a list of RFAs and interrogatories that required defendant’s review

of plaintiff’s materials prior to compliance therewith). Whether plaintiff agreed to take the

motion to compel off calendar permanently, is not disclosed in the agreement. 

In view of the parties’ agreement, and what appears from the record to be plaintiff’s

unexpected and unwarranted request for “model” amended answers to certain RFAs and

interrogatories prior to the date for defendant’s compliance with the foregoing agreement,

defendant’s objection to the June 14 order is not without some merit, to the extent

premised upon the Magistrate Judge’s refusal to consider the agreement’s existence and

Case 4:09-cv-03044-PJH Document 165 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 2
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

its potential impact on plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

Notwithstanding this observation, ultimately, it is not clear that plaintiff promised to

withdraw the motion to compel on a permanent basis. Furthermore, the agreement as

stated was premised on preconditions regarding defendant’s discovery disclosures. And as

the multiple exchanges between the parties demonstrate, the parties’ underlying dispute

encompassed not only a dispute as to the existence of any agreement, but also a dispute

as to whether defendant effectively discharged the discovery obligations underlying the

agreement. As such, judicial resolution of the merits of the parties’ discovery dispute could

not have been totally obviated by the foregoing agreement. Therefore, and with respect to

the overriding merits of the Magistrate Judge’s decision, the court OVERRULES

defendant’s objections to the June 14 order. 

As a corollary matter, the court furthermore notes that it does not appear, based on

the conduct disclosed in relation to the underlying meet and confer efforts, that sanctions

would be warranted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-03044-PJH Document 165 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2