Summary
holding initial disclosures required where "parties [had] agreed that discovery outside the administrative record, authorized under the rationale of Abatie, [was] permitted"
Summary of this case from Bender v. Hartford Life Insurance CompanyOpinion
2:07-cv-01795-GEB-CMK.
March 3, 2008
ORDER
This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).
Plaintiff Denise K. Hamma brings this action to recover benefits under the Intel Corporation Long Term Disability Benefit Plan ("LTD Plan") and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Defendants move for limited discovery seeking: "(1) identification of specific documents upon which Plaintiff relies to prove her claim and an actual conflict of interest, and (2) information regarding Plaintiff's Social Security Disability payments and other possible offsets." (Defs.' Mot. at 2:22-24.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff moves for "specified discovery within the confines of discovery allowed by Abatie v. Alta Health Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006)" and for an order "requir[ing] Defendants to provide full initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (Pl.'s Mot. at 1:5-10; 2:1-2.) Defendants oppose the motion.
All subsequent references to Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff worked at Intel Corporation from June of 2000 through February of 2004. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff became disabled due to illness in July of 2003. (Id. at ¶ 10.) In March of 2004, Plaintiff filed a claim for long term disability benefits under the LTD Plan. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Her claim and subsequent appeals to the Intel Disability Appeals Committee were denied; Plaintiff filed this action after exhausting all administrative remedies. (Id. at ¶ 26.)
In the parties' Joint Status Report filed on November 13, 2007, they disagreed as to whether initial disclosures were required under Rule 26(a)(1). The parties agreed, however, "that the Court's review, and the corresponding scope of discovery, is limited to the administrative record — i.e., the information and knowledge of the individuals who made the decisions to deny Plaintiff benefits at the time those decisions were made, the facts known to the decision-makers. Evidence outside the administrative record may be considered `to decide the nature, extent, and effect on the decision-making process of any conflict of interest'. . . ." (Joint Status Report at 3:26-28, 4:1-4 (citing Abatie, 458 F.3d at 970).) A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order issued November 21, 2007 prescribing: "A party desiring discovery [in this action] must file a motion that seeks specified discovery, and the factual and legal basis justifying the request. . . ." (Order, Nov. 21, 2007 at 2:8-10.)
ANALYSIS
I. Defendants' Motion A. Documents upon which Plaintiff relies
Defendants seek "identification of specific documents upon which Plaintiff relies to prove her claim and an actual conflict of interest. . . ." (Defs.' Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff argues Defendants already possess such evidence, it would be burdensome for Plaintiff to identify each piece of objective medical evidence, and such information constitutes attorney work product. (Pl.'s Opp'n at 3:9-12, 5:2-9.) Defendant rejoins they do not seek documents or other communications between Plaintiff and her attorney; they only seek identification of documents that support Plaintiff's claim. (Defs.' Reply at 2:12-13.)
Defendants have not shown a need for the documents they seek. Plaintiff has already identified several documents that support her claims in her Complaint, and the parties agreed to filing cross motions for summary judgment to decide this action. (Joint Status Report at 3:4-6, 7:21-23.) Accordingly, this portion of Defendants' motion is denied.
B. Plaintiff's Social Security Disability payments
Defendants also seek the production of "information regarding Plaintiff's Social Security Disability payments and other possible offsets." (Defs.' Mot. at 2:23-24.) Defendants argue the LTD Plan expressly provides for a reduction of Plan benefits for a variety of circumstances, including Social Security disability payments. (Defs.' Mot. at 3:14-18; Ex. 2 (LTD Plan) at 3975-76.) Plaintiff argues this discovery is unnecessary and Defendants have already been provided Plaintiff's Social Security Award information. (Pl.'s Opp'n at 8:9-24.)
Defendants have not shown it is entitled to such discovery. Plaintiff's Complaint merely seeks the Court to "order defendants to retroactively approve and reinstate Ms. Hamma to the LTD Plan and to order the payment of retroactive benefits and the payment of all future benefits under the terms of the LTD Plan and Policy. . . ." (Compl. ¶ 26.) Defendants have not shown that the terms of the LTD Plan and policy applicable to the discovery they seek are disputed in this action. Therefore, this portion of Defendants' motion is also denied.
II. Plaintiff's Motion A. Discovery within Abatie
Plaintiff seeks leave "to conduct discovery, as allowed consistent with [the] Ninth Circuit's decision in Abatie II [herein Abatie] and decisions within the Ninth Circuit before and since Abatie II, and consistent with the parties' Joint Status Report." (Pl.'s Mot. at 9:8-13.) Defendants oppose the motion arguing "Plaintiff's motion does not seek specified discovery, as required by the Court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order of 11/21/07." (Defs.' Opp'n at 1:23-24.) In Abatie, the Ninth Circuit defined the scope of discovery allowed in an ERISA case such as this one:
The district court may, in its discretion, consider evidence outside the administrative record to decide the nature, extent, and effect on the decision-making process of any conflict of interest; the decision on the merits, though, must rest on the administrative record once the conflict (if any) has been established, by extrinsic evidence or otherwise.Abatie, 458 F.3d at 970. Since the parties agreed in the Joint Status Report that the limited discovery contemplated by Abatie should be allowed, this portion of Plaintiff's motion is granted.
The scope of discovery allowed by Abatie and other decisions is not determined herein.
B. Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff seeks a Court order requiring Defendants to provide full initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1). Defendants argue initial disclosures are not required because an ERISA case is an action for review on an administrative record, and falls within an exception to Rule 26(a)(1). (Joint Status Report at 3:18-19.) Plaintiff rejoins that "ERISA appeals are not ordinary administrative appeals, and do not fall within the exclusion from initial disclosures. . . ." (Pl.'s Mot. at 11:22-24; 12:1-3.)
Rule 26(a)(1)(B)(I) prescribes: "an action for review on an administrative record" is exempt from the initial disclosure requirement. However, here the parties have agreed that discovery outside the administrative record, authorized under the rationale of Abatie, is permitted. Therefore, initial disclosures concerning such information shall be made. See Coleman v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (allowing initial disclosures in an ERISA case).
C. Whether the LTD Plan is an ERISA Plan
Plaintiff also moves for discovery on "whether the Intel LTD Plan is an ERISA plan." (Pl.'s Mot. at 11:3-4.) Defendants rejoin that this "has been established by the specific allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint . . . and the corresponding admissions in the Plan's Answer." (Defs.' Opp'n at 4, n1.) Plaintiff has not shown why this information is necessary in light of the pleadings. (See Intel Corporation/LTD Plan Answer, Docket # 12 at ¶ 5.) Therefore, this portion of Plaintiff's motion is denied.
SUMMARY
Defendants' motion for specified discovery (Docket #28) is denied. Plaintiff's motion for discovery (Docket #36) is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.