Sutera v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

Full title: LEONARD SUTERA, Plaintiff, v. AETNA LIFE INS. CO., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Oct 11, 2007

Civil Action. No. 06-10862-NMG (D. Mass. Oct. 11, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action. No. 06-10862-NMG.

October 11, 2007

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOCKET #17)

LEO SOROKIN, Magistrate Judge

In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff challenges the Defendant's termination of his long term disability benefits. He concedes that this Court reviews the Defendant's decision under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. Docket #18, at 1. The Plaintiff seeks discovery describing the information relied upon by the Defendant, the procedural history of the claim, the Defendant's underwriting/claims protocols, and conflict of interests.¹

1 The Plaintiff's motion is styled as a motion to compel discovery answers. On January 4, 2007, the Court ordered that upon reviewing the administrative record, "plaintiff will file on or before 4/20/07 motion leave to take additional discovery." See Electronic Clerk's Notes for Scheduling Conference held on January 4, 2007. The record does not reflect when Plaintiff's written discovery requests were served, and no responses have been made by the Defendant. It appears that the written discovery requests may have been provided to Defendant's counsel merely as a means of negotiating the scope of potential discovery beyond the administrative record without court intervention. Accordingly, the Court treats the pending motion a motion seeking permission to take discovery beyond the record, rather than as a motion to compel overdue responses.

In support of his Motion, the Plaintiff identifies no information suggesting that the administrative record is incomplete and identifies no particular basis for requiring discovery into any of the other topics he proposes. Moreover, the interrogatory and document requests seek, at least in some instances, discovery beyond the described topics. Under applicable law "some very good reason is needed to overcome the strong presumption that the record on review is limited to the record before the administrator." Liston v. Unum Corp. Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2003). Even to the extent the First Circuit refined Liston in its more recent decision in Glista v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 378 F.3d 113, 122 (1st Cir. 2004), the First Circuit subsequently reiterated the Liston holding that discovery requires a good reason grounded in the specifics of the case before the Court.See Orndorf v. Paul Revere Life Insurance, 404 F.3d 510, 519 (1^st Cir. 2005) (stating "the focus of judicial review, under the arbitrary and capricious standard, is ordinarily on the record made before the administrator and at least some very good reason is needed to overcome that preference"). The Plaintiff identifies no reasons tied to this case in support of his general discovery requests.

Under the Department of Labor Regulations, however, in the case of a group health plan or a plan providing disability benefits, the Plaintiff is entitled to "documents, record[s] or other information . . . which 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." 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(m)(8)(iv); see also Glista v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 378 F.3d 113, 123 (1st Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, the Motion (Docket # 17) is ALLOWED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART. The Plaintiff may serve a document production request narrowly tailored to the categories of documents defined as "relevant" by 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(m)(8)(i) — (iv), to the extent these documents are not already included within the Administrative Record. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.