Summary
acknowledging the persuasiveness of plaintiffs arguments concerning the discovery requests, but concluding that plaintiff's motion to compel exceeded the bounds of Vega
Summary of this case from CROSBY v. BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANAOpinion
Civil Action No. 04-1432, Section "A" (2).
December 8, 2004
Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel defendant to supplement the administrative record and respond to her interrogatories and requests for production of documents in this matter. Record Doc. No. 12. Defendant has filed a timely memorandum in opposition. Record Doc. No. 13. Having considered the record, the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is reluctantly DENIED.
The law that binds me as a lower court magistrate judge in this circuit is that a district court is confined to the administrative record in determining ERISA cases, but that this restriction is subject to "certain limited exceptions.To date, those exceptions have been related to either interpreting the plan or explaining medical terms and procedures relating to the claim. Thus, evidence related to how an administrator has interpreted terms of the plan in other instances is admissible. Likewise, evidence, including expert opinion, that assists the district court in understanding the medical terminology or practice related to a claim would be equally admissible." Vega v. National Life Ins. Servs., Inc., 188 F.3d 287, 299 (5th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added).
The foregoing standard relates specifically to what is admissible at trial in ERISA cases. Of course, the scope of discovery is not limited strictly to what is admissible at trial, but instead extends to that which is also "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Thus, under Vega, admissible evidence outside the administrative record would extend to information "either interpreting the plan or explaining medical terms and procedures relating to the claim."
Plaintiff's arguments concerning the subject information, particularly as they relate to the conflict of interest issue, are persuasive, even compelling. If this were something other than an ERISA case, the requested information would probably be both relevant and discoverable. However, I cannot conceive how permitting the requested record supplementation or requiring responses to these discovery requests would lead to the discovery of evidence admissible within the restrictive boundaries identified in Vega, either because it interprets the plan or explains medical terms and procedures relating to the claim.
I must conclude that plaintiff's motion seeks relief that exceeds the Vega boundaries. Until a further exception toVega along the lines requested by plaintiff is recognized by the Fifth Circuit, I will not go beyond Vega to permit one. For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED.