Dubrovin v. Ball Corp. Consolidated Welfare Benefit Plan

Full title: BARBARA K. DUBROVIN, Plaintiff, v. THE BALL CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: May 1, 2009

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00563-WYD-KMT (D. Colo. May. 1, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00563-WYD-KMT.

May 1, 2009

ORDER

KATHLEEN TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the court on "Defendants' Motion for Clarification." [Doc. No. 69, filed January 13, 2009.] Plaintiff filed a response on February 2, 2009 [Doc. No. 75] and Defendants replied on February 17, 2009. [Doc. No. 86.]

Neither the response nor the reply addressed the issues raised in the original motion and were singularly unhelpful to the court and therefore will not be considered.

The defendants' motion seeks "clarification" of two portions of the court's order concerning discovery [Doc. No. 65]: 1) the meaning of the phrase "[t]his court considers these omissions to be a prima facie showing of procedural irregularities . . .", id. and; 2) "clarification concerning the status of a `standard of review' determination." (Mot. at 1.)

This court sees no need to elaborate on the meaning of "a prima facie showing." The defendants correctly defined the phrase and the order is clear in its import as it related to whether or notdiscovery on certain matters and issues — issues which might be relevant to the standard of review as it would be applied by Chief Judge Daniel on his review of the merits of the case — would be allowed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) provides

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Id. (emphasis added).

Further, the Order could hardly have been more clear than to state, ". . . a determine of this question [the standard of review and the deference to be accorded to the administrator of the plan] is not necessary to the adjudication of the within motion [Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Discovery] and therefore will not be addressed."

Wherefore, it is ORDERED Defendants' Motion for Clarification [Doc. No. 69] is DENIED.