Summary
denying motion to compel depositions in ERISA case where plaintiff subsequently limited request to written discovery
Summary of this case from Bender v. Hartford Life Insurance CompanyOpinion
No. C-09-1404 JSW (EMC), Docket Nos. 36, 38.
March 26, 2010
Currently pending before the Court are two motions to compel filed by Plaintiff. Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of counsel and all other evidence of record, the Court hereby rules as follows.
(1) To the extent it has not yet done so, MetLife shall provide a declaration certifying that it has complied with Judge White's order of October 22, 2009 — i.e., that it has produced documents responsive to the three categories listed on pages 3 and 4 of the order, see Docket No. 25 (Order at 3-4), subject to the requirement of ¶ 5 herein. If no responsive documents exist, MetLife shall so state.
(2) In response to the Court's observation that the requests were overbroad for an ERISA case, Plaintiff stated at the hearing that she was willing to limit her request for discovery to written discovery regarding three subject matters.
(3) Plaintiff has asked for written discovery regarding three subject matters. The first is, in essence, a document request asking for a sampling of reports that Dr. Sloan has prepared for MetLife in other disability cases. The Court grants this request. MetLife shall produce twenty-five reports of Dr. Sloan closest in time to the report generated for Plaintiff.
(4) The second discovery request is, in essence, an interrogatory asking MetLife what statistics or information it collects for purposes of managing disability claims. This discovery request is denied. As discussed at the hearing, the probative value of the information is marginal and appears to be in the nature of a fishing expedition, contrary to the terms of Judge White's October 22 order.
(5) The third discovery request is, in essence, a document request asking MetLife to produce any instructions that it gives to its claim adjusters as to how to assess claims dealing with chronic pain. The Court deems this request to fall within the parameters of Judge White's October 22 order. In that order, Judge White instructed MetLife to produce "any portion of the CMG or other internal documents to the extent such documents . . . (3) constitute a statement of policy or guidance with respect to the plan concerning the denied treatment option or benefit for the claimant's diagnosis, without regard to whether such advice or statement was relied upon in making the benefit determination." Docket No. 25 (Order at 3-4); see also 8 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(m)(8) (deeming information relevant if, "[i]n the case of a group health plan or a plan providing disability benefits, [it] constitutes a statement of policy or guidance with respect to the plan concerning the denied treatment option or benefit for the claimant's diagnosis, without regard to whether such advice or statement was relied upon in making the benefit determination"). MetLife advocates for a narrow reading of Judge White's order based on his use of the phrase "with respect to the plan." But the Court does not view that phrase as limiting, at least not in the situation presented here. So long as, e.g., the CMG was available to the adjusters working on the plan applicable to Plaintiff, then the portion of the CMG relevant to chronic pain should be produced. Even if the documents were not within the parameters of Judge White's order, the Court finds the request is sufficiently tailored to documents that may have probative value on the issue of the effect of the structural conflict on MetLife's decisionmaking as to warrant its production. The Court rejects MetLife's position that this information is relevant only to the merits of the claim decision and not the issue of structural conflict. The Court also rejects MetLife's assertion that the information should not be produced because it is highly confidential and proprietary. That concern may be dealt with by a protective order, limiting the use of the information for purposes of this litigation only and designating the information "Attorney's Eyes Only."
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion to compel to the extent ordered herein and denies the remainder of motion.
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 36 and 38.
IT IS SO ORDERED.