Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05014/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05014-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORTHERA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05014-EMC 

ORDER RE PARTIES' JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS OF 

NOVEMBER 6, 2015

Docket Nos. 40, 41

Before the Court is a discovery dispute between the parties. Docket Nos. 40, 41. Having 

considered the letter briefs and finding that good cause has been shown, the Court orders as 

follows:

First, Plaintiffs Corthera, Inc. and Thomas G. Wiggans propound interrogatories requesting 

that Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company identify specific actions (including but not limited 

to motions, pleadings, legal research, and/or discovery), invoice entries, or charges that Defendant 

contends should not have been undertaken. Docket No. 40, Exh. A, Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18. 

Danaher Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., Case No. 10 Civ. 0121(JPO)(JCF), 2015 WL 409525 

(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2015) does not support Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant is required to 

identify every invoice entry it disagrees with. However, the Court finds that Defendant’s 

generalized responses are inadequate, and will require Defendant to provide a detailed response of 

its contentions with respect to the amount of overspending by categories of activities (e.g., by 

particular pleading or document, stage of discovery, topic of investigation, research subject, etc.). 

The response must quantify the amount of hours Defendant claims were unreasonable and 

unnecessary, and provide sufficient detail to understand the nature of the work and activities 

associated with the challenged hours.

Second, Plaintiffs request information regarding whether in the past two years, Defendant 

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 42 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

has paid hourly rates higher than those to panel counsel Gordon & Rees in any civil litigation in 

California. Docket No. 40, Exh. B, Interrogatory No. 8. Defendant limited its response to “panel 

counsel retained by Scottsdale to defend its insureds in commercial civil litigation in the San 

Francisco area for the type of coverage provided by the Policy at issue in this action.” Id. The 

Court will require Defendant to respond whether it has paid higher rates to any counsel in 

California for civil litigation related to intellectual property claims, like those at issue in the 

underlying case Florey Institute of Neuroscience & Mental Health v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & 

Byers, Case No. 12-6504-SC. 

Third, Plaintiffs request the production of documents as to retention of or consent to 

defense counsel at rates higher than those paid by Defendant to Gordon & Rees, panel counsel 

retained by Defendant, and documents relating to Defendant’s agreement to represent insureds in 

civil litigation in California by counsel other than panel counsel. Docket No. 40, Exh. C, Request 

for Production Nos. 9-11. Defendant is required to provide the requested documents consistent 

with the Court’s order above, as this is a reasonable category of comparable cases that is relevant 

to the instant litigation. To the extent that the requested documents contain sensitive business 

information, the parties may stipulate to a protective order.

Finally, Defendant requests that Plaintiffs provide verified supplemental responses to

Defendant’s interrogatories requesting the identification of communications on the selection of 

counsel to represent Mr. Wiggans in the underlying action. Docket No. 41, Exh. A, Interrogatory 

Nos. 2, 4; Exh. B, Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4. The Court notes that Plaintiffs appear to already be in 

the process of providing such responses, but will order that Plaintiffs continue to supplement their 

responses and identify and/or describe the communications as requested. However, to the extent 

that Defendants are requesting that Plaintiffs provide detailed information about conversations that 

they do not recall or of which they do not have personal knowledge, Defendant’s request is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 42 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2