Opinion
CV-18-00378-TUC-JGZ
10-17-2022
Robert Luke Adams, Plaintiff, v. Symetra Life Insurance Company, Defendant.
ORDER
JENNIFER G. ZIPPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 13, 2022, the Court held a telephonic status conference to discuss trial preparation, scheduling, and the parties'joint report. During the status conference, Symetra requested that the Court reopen discovery and Adams requested that the Court grant summary judgment sua sponte in his favor on Symetra's affirmative defense of ERISA preemption. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Symetra's request to reopen discovery and direct Symetra to file a response addressing why Adams is not entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of ERISA preemption.
I. Symetra's Request To Reopen Discovery
Symetra requested that the Court reopen discovery because it needs to develop facts relevant to its affirmative defense of ERISA preemption, including facts related to Adams' involvement in his employees' TAA benefits and the insurance documents Adams presented belatedly during summary judgment briefing. Symetra specifically pointed to a discrepancy in Adams' statements: his first declaration stated that none of his employees received benefits through TAA and his second declaration stated that they did. (See Docs. 96-1, 266-1.)
A court may reopen discovery for good cause. Fed. R. Civ P. 6(b), 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The prevailing factor a court considers when weighing this decision is whether the party requesting to reopen discovery has shown due diligence. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Symetra has not demonstrated due diligence.
Because ERISA preemption is an affirmative defense, Symetra bears the burden of uncovering and proving the facts necessary to establish it. See Kanne v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 867 F.2d 489, 492 n.4 (9th Cir. 1988). Symetra had the opportunity in September 2018 to raise an ERISA defense in its Answer. It did not, and instead conceded that ERISA did not apply. (Doc. 10 ¶ 10.) The next month, Symetra made no mention of an ERISA defense in the Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report. (See Doc. 21.) Not until one year later, after Adams' deposition, did Symetra move to amend its Answer and raise the affirmative defense of ERISA preemption. (Doc. 89.) Adams filed a response opposing amendment, which he supported with his first declaration. (Doc. 96.) At this point, Symetra could have requested the opportunity to redepose Adams about his declaration and ERISA-related issues. The parties did request several extensions to the discovery deadline, including an extension to depose four other witnesses. (Docs. 88, 145.) Symetra, however, made no mention of redeposing Adams. (See Docs. 87, 138.)
In February 2020, after the discovery deadline passed, Symetra filed motions for partial summary judgment. (Docs. 200, 202.) Magistrate Judge Bowman issued two Report and Recommendations, which recommended that the Court deny Symetra's motions. (Docs. 256, 257.) Symetra filed objections and Adams filed responses. (Docs. 259, 260, 265, 266.) In the May 2020 Response related to Symetra's ERISA defense, Adams included new documentation and a second declaration contradicting his first declaration. (Doc. 266.) If exploring this new and conflicting information was essential to its defense, Symetra could have requested that the Court reopen discovery before ruling on the motions for summary judgment. Symetra did not. Symetra also could have presented this request in the parties' October 7, 2022 Joint Report. It did not. (See Doc. 375.) Instead, Symetra waited until the October 13, 2022 status conference, when the Court asked it whether any disputed facts remained for trial, to present its request to reopen discovery.
The Court thus finds that Symetra has not shown due diligence. Symetra could have raised its ERISA defense earlier in the case, allowing it more time to develop the record and conduct necessary discovery. More importantly, Symetra waited over two years to raise this request. The Court will deny Symetra's request to reopen discovery.
II. Adams' Request that the Court Grant Summary Judgment Sua Sponte
At the status conference, Adams requested that the Court grant summary judgment sua sponte in his favor on Symetra's affirmative defense of ERISA preemption. A court may grant summary judgment for a nonmovant or on its on motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). Sua sponte grants of summary judgment are only appropriate if the losing party has reasonable notice that the sufficiency of its claim will be at issue and a full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1176 (9th Cir. 2014).
In its October 3, 2022 Order, the Court noted that Symetra may still present argument at trial related to the issues of ERISA preemption, insurance bad faith, and punitive damages, despite the Court denying Symetra's motions for partial summary judgment on those issues. (Doc. 374 at 2.) However, at the October 13, 2022 status conference, Adams insisted all facts material to ERISA preemption were undisputed. Further, Symetra represented to the Court that no disputed facts existed and instead contended that it needed to reopen discovery, request documents, and depose Adams and his former employee Kim Hightower. As discussed above, the Court will deny Symetra's untimely request to reopen discovery. If all facts material to ERISA preemption are undisputed and Symetra had a full opportunity to develop the record, then the Court may consider granting summary judgment sua sponte. See Albino, 747 F.3d 1176-77.
Even so, the Court must exercise great care before granting summary judgment to a nonmovant and provide Symetra with reasonable notice to show that the sufficiency of its affirmative defense will be in issue. See id. The Court will thus direct Symetra to file a response addressing why Adams is not entitled to summary judgment on the affirmative defense of ERISA preemption. In its response, Symetra may also raise the new legal arguments which it wishes to present at trial. (See Doc. 375 at 2-3; October 13, 2022 status conference.) Preparation for trial, however, shall continue and the Court will set deadlines accordingly.
III. Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Symetra Life Insurance Company's request to reopen discovery is
DENIED.
2. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Symetra shall file a response pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing why Adams is not entitled to summary judgment with respect to Symetra's affirmative defense of ERISA preemption. Such response shall not exceed 15 pages, exclusive of attachments.