Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00403-WJM-BNB
01-04-2012
JAY CLEARY, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN (PLAN 503)and EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
ORDER
This matter arises on the following:
(1) Motion for Discovery [Doc. # 58, filed 12/5/2011]; and
(2) Plaintiff's Showing By Declaration That, For Specified Reasons, He Cannot Present Facts Essential to Justify His Opposition to Employee Benefit Plans Committee's Motion for Summary Judgment Until Discovery Is Conducted [Doc. # 48, filed 7/18/2011] (the "Rule 56(d) Motion").
I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Motion for Discovery [Doc. # 58] and the Rule 56(d) Motion [Doc. # 48] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
• GRANTED to allow the plaintiff to serve a subpoena duces tecum and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on the United Launch Alliance Welfare Benefits Plan for Heritage Boeing Employees and/or the United Launch Alliance Administrative Committee in order to determine the actual plan provisions which apply to the plaintiff's claims and the identities of the proper Plan, Plan Sponsor, and Plan Administrator; and
• DENIED in all other respects.
(2) The discovery allowed by this Order shall be completed on or before February 17, 2012.
(3) The plaintiff shall respond to Defendant Employee Benefit Plans Committee's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief [Doc. # 39] on or before February 29, 2012, and the Committee shall reply on or before March 16, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge