Opinion
CASE NO. 1:02cv64 MMP
November 10, 2003
ORDER
This case is before the Court on the motion of the plaintiff to conduct limited discovery (doc. 24), which the defendant opposes (doc. 28). In short the defendant argues that since the Court previously ruled that this case is covered by ERISA, the Court may only consider the four corners of the administrative record and therefore no discovery should be permitted. While the Court agrees that ERISA cases involve a strictly limited review of the record, the Court also notes that courts nationwide have generally permitted discovery, even in instances in which an "arbitrary and capricious" standard applies, in order to assist the court in determining the proper standard of review and in evaluating 1) the exact nature of the information considered by the fiduciary in making the decision; 2) whether the fiduciary was competent to evaluate the information in the administrative record; 3) how the fiduciary reached its decision; 4) whether, given the nature of the information in the record, it was incumbent upon the fiduciary to seek outside technical assistance in reaching a "fair and full review" of the claim; and 5) to determine whether a conflict of interest existed.Cerrito v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 209 F.R.D. 663, 664 (M.D.Fla., 2002).
As the Court stated in Caldwell v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 165 F.R.D. 633 (D.Kan., 1996):
That the trial court may only review the evidence before the administrator when it denied benefits does not, however, necessarily preclude all discovery. It necessarily only precludes discovery on issues related to the merits of the claim for benefits. A plaintiff may be entitled to discovery to determine whether the fiduciary or administrator fulfilled his fiduciary role in obtaining the necessary information in order to make his determination, whether the persons who assisted in compiling the record followed the proper procedure, as well as, whether the record is complete.Id. at 637. Here, the plaintiffs requests for discovery seem to fall within the scope of the allowable discovery described in the above cases. Accordingly, is it hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The motion to conduct discovery (doc. 24) is granted, without prejudice to the defendant raising specific, supported objections to particular evidentiary requests, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and 37.
2. The defendant shall immediately complete its Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. The April 10, 2003, discovery deadline remains in force, absent further order of the Court.DONE AND ORDERED