Newman v. Standard Ins. Co.

1 Citing case

  1. Fitts v. Federal National Mortgage Association.

    204 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2001)   Cited 6 times
    In Fitts, the plaintiff alleged that UNUM wrongfully excluded bipolar disorder from the long-term benefits plan, but asked for information on other insurance claims in which UNUM excluded any mental illness or disorder from coverage based on the physical/non-physical distinction.

    While generalizations are impossible (and dangerous), it can be said that the courts have searched for a close connection between the information sought and the issues presented. E.g.,Buchanan v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 5 F.Supp.2d 1172 (D.Kan.1998)(discovery limited to narrow question of the manner in which insurance company made the decision); Newman v. Standard Ins. Co., 997 F.Supp. 1276 (C.D.Cal.1998)(disallowing discovery as to possible conflict of interest); Palmer v. University Medical Group, 973 F.Supp. 1179 (D.Or.1997)(same). The scope of discovery in ERISA cases permitted is simply not the same as the discovery permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).