Opinion
Case No. 3:09-cv-356.
April 15, 2010
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff William Wagner's ("Wagner's") request to conduct discovery outside of the administrative record. Wagner and Defendant CIBA Corporation ("CIBA") were given leave to file simultaneous memoranda and simultaneous responses regarding this request. This they have done. Therefore, the issue of whether discovery outside of the administrative record may be conducted is ripe for decision.
Wagner's Complaint sets forth five causes of action. Count One is an Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") claim for recovery of plan benefits. Count Two is another ERISA claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Count Three is for attorneys' fees and costs. Count Four is for tortious interference and Count Five is for public policy violations.
Wagner terms his complaint an "ERISA action" and seeks discovery on the ERISA claim. CIBA argues that Wagner's state-law claims are preempted by ERISA. Therefore, only discovery regarding Wagner's ERISA claims will be considered.
If CIBA wishes to have Wagner's state-law claims preempted/dismissed, it may petition the Court to do so.
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
A district court's review of an ERISA action is generally based solely upon the administrative record. Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., 150 F.3d 609, 615 (6th Cir. 1998). However, evidence outside of the administrative record may be considered if that evidence is offered in support of a procedural challenge to the administrator's decision such as a lack of due process or alleged bias. Huffaker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 271 Fed. Appx. 493, 503 (6th Cir. 2008).Yet, a procedural challenge requires more than mere allegations. Id. A claimant must provide facts to support a claim that discovery might lead to evidence of a procedural violation. Putney v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, 111 Fed. Appx. 803, 807 (6th Cir. 2004). Where no evidence of procedural violations is presented and there are no facts on the record to support such a claim, discovery is not permitted. Huffaker, 271 Fed. Appx. at 504. For example, a mere allegation of bias is not sufficient to permit discovery beyond the administrative record. Likas v. Life Insurance Company of North America, 222 Fed. Appx. 481, 486 (6th Cir. 2007); Putney, 111 Fed. Appx. at 807.
ANALYSIS
Wagner alleges that CIBA does not uniformly apply its severance plan because other former CIBA employees have received severance benefits even though they may have had outside business interests. Wagner also alleges that CIBA's requirement that an employee receive written approval from his or her supervisor before engaging in outside business interests was not uniformly applied. Thus, Wagner seeks discovery, outside the administrative record, of individual employees who were granted severance plan benefits over the last ten years.
However no evidence that former employees have received severance benefits even though they may have had outside business interests is identified in Wagner's un-verified Complaint or in his briefing papers on this issue. All Wagner has presented are mere allegations. Thus, Wagner has not shown that discovery to supplement the administrative record should be permitted.
A second Preliminary Pretrial Conference on this matter will be conducted via telephone at 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday, May 12, 2010. A revised 26(f) report must be filed at least seven (7) days prior to this Preliminary Pretrial Conference.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio.