Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04082-5/pdf.json

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

1

 St. Paul filed its letter on June 3, 2005. Atmel filed a response on June 10, 2005. St. Paul replied

on June 15, 2005.

2

 These were the three chips sold to Seagate. Given that Atmelhas over 200 products that utilize the

mold compound at issue in this case, the Court findsit appropriate to limit the production of documents to the

three products at issue in Seagate.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-04082 SI

ORDER RE: ST. PAUL’S FIRST

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

By letter briefs,1the parties bring before the Court a dispute involving production of documents

pursuant to St. Paul’s first request for production of documents. St. Paul asks that the Court order Atmel to

comply with the request and produce all relevant documents. The Court will address each argument in turn.

1. Requests Nos. 1-13

These requests involve complaints, issues or concerns about Atmel’s allegedly defective chips. Atmel

argues that the documents in the Seagate litigation are sufficient to comply with St. Paul’s request, because

Atmel’s knowledge was at issue in that case as well. The Court disagrees. The Court finds that Atmel must

produce documents related to problems with the 1, 2 and 4 megabit chips2 from any customer that involve the

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 199 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 6
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

mold compound at issue in this case. Atmel’s concerns about the confidentiality of its customer lists are

addressed by the protective order. Based on the discussion above, the Court ORDERS Atmel to produce all

relevant documents created on or before July 31, 2003.

2. Requests Nos. 14-15

These requests seek minutes of meetings ofAtmel’s Board ofDirectors and Atmel’s communications

with its outside auditors concerning the allegedly defective Atmel chips. Atmel has agreed to produce the

documents created before July 31, 2002, which is the date the underlying Seagate litigation was filed. The

Court findsthat documents created after July 31, 2002 should be produced, as they could contain information

about events before January 1, 2002. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Atmel to comply with St. Paul’s request.

3. Request No. 21

This request relates to the four claims identified by Atmel in its application for insurance with St. Paul.

The parties appear to have resolved this dispute; therefore, the Court will not reach a determination on this

issue.

4. Requests Nos. 26-29

The parties also appear to have resolved this dispute;therefore,the Court will notreach a determination

on this issue.

5. Request Nos. 33-34

In these requests, St. Paul seeks “all documents relating to Atmel’s external procedures, policies,

guidelines, suggestions, or recommendations for handling customer complaints or issues regarding an Atmel

product” and “all documents relating to Atmel’s internal procedures, policies, guidelines, suggestions, or

recommendations for internal reporting and notification of customer complaints or issues regarding an Atmel

product.” In its reply, St. Paul contends that these requests are limited to the relevant “division or subsidiary

of Atmelthatmanufactured the Seagate chips.” However, the Court cannot find that limitation in the request.

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 199 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Therefore, the Court DENIES St. Paul’s request, as Atmel has agree to produce the guidelines relevant to

Seagate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/31/05

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 199 Filed 08/31/05 Page 3 of 6
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

1

 St. Paul filed its letter on June 3, 2005. Atmel filed a response on June 10, 2005. St. Paul replied

on June 15, 2005.

2

 These were the three chips sold to Seagate. Given that Atmelhas over 200 products that utilize the

mold compound at issue in this case, the Court findsit appropriate to limit the production of documents to the

three products at issue in Seagate.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-04082 SI

ORDER RE: ST. PAUL’S FIRST

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

By letter briefs,1the parties bring before the Court a dispute involving production of documents

pursuant to St. Paul’s first request for production of documents. St. Paul asks that the Court order Atmel to

comply with the request and produce all relevant documents. The Court will address each argument in turn.

1. Requests Nos. 1-13

These requests involve complaints, issues or concerns about Atmel’s allegedly defective chips. Atmel

argues that the documents in the Seagate litigation are sufficient to comply with St. Paul’s request, because

Atmel’s knowledge was at issue in that case as well. The Court disagrees. The Court finds that Atmel must

produce documents related to problems with the 1, 2 and 4 megabit chips2 from any customer that involve the

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 199 Filed 08/31/05 Page 4 of 6
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

mold compound at issue in this case. Atmel’s concerns about the confidentiality of its customer lists are

addressed by the protective order. Based on the discussion above, the Court ORDERS Atmel to produce all

relevant documents created on or before July 31, 2003.

2. Requests Nos. 14-15

These requests seek minutes of meetings ofAtmel’s Board ofDirectors and Atmel’s communications

with its outside auditors concerning the allegedly defective Atmel chips. Atmel has agreed to produce the

documents created before July 31, 2002, which is the date the underlying Seagate litigation was filed. The

Court findsthat documents created after July 31, 2002 should be produced, as they could contain information

about events before January 1, 2002. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Atmel to comply with St. Paul’s request.

3. Request No. 21

This request relates to the four claims identified by Atmel in its application for insurance with St. Paul.

The parties appear to have resolved this dispute; therefore, the Court will not reach a determination on this

issue.

4. Requests Nos. 26-29

The parties also appear to have resolved this dispute;therefore,the Court will notreach a determination

on this issue.

5. Request Nos. 33-34

In these requests, St. Paul seeks “all documents relating to Atmel’s external procedures, policies,

guidelines, suggestions, or recommendations for handling customer complaints or issues regarding an Atmel

product” and “all documents relating to Atmel’s internal procedures, policies, guidelines, suggestions, or

recommendations for internal reporting and notification of customer complaints or issues regarding an Atmel

product.” In its reply, St. Paul contends that these requests are limited to the relevant “division or subsidiary

of Atmelthatmanufactured the Seagate chips.” However, the Court cannot find that limitation in the request.

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 199 Filed 08/31/05 Page 5 of 6
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

Therefore, the Court DENIES St. Paul’s request, as Atmel has agree to produce the guidelines relevant to

Seagate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/31/05

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04082-SI Document 199 Filed 08/31/05 Page 6 of 6