Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00275/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00275-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DE NOVO REVIEW 

[Case No. 05-00275 JF (PVT)] Page 1

Teresa S. Renaker – CA State Bar No. 187800 

Claire Kennedy-Wilkins – CA State Bar No. 231897

LEWIS, FEINBERG, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.

1330 Broadway, Suite 1800

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 839-6824

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839

ckwilkins@lewisfeinberg.com

trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JULIE SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA and CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-00275 JF (PVT)

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER FOR DE NOVO REVIEW

WHEREAS, on May 4, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct

discovery going to her claims under ERISA §§ 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. §§

1132(a)(1)(B), (a)(3), and

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2006, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the

pleadings as to Plaintiff’s ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim and allowed Plaintiff 30 days within which

to amend the complaint, and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has not amended her complaint, and 

WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid the expense and delay of conducting discovery 

and motions going to the appropriate standard of review of Plaintiff’s ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)

claim,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE

**E-filed 6/28/06**

Case 5:05-cv-00275-JF Document 41 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DE NOVO REVIEW 

[Case No. 05-00275 JF (PVT)] Page 2

PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) shall be reviewed de

novo by the Court.

2. The Court’s order for de novo review based on this stipulation shall render the

discovery requests previously served by Plaintiff in this matter moot, and Defendant shall have

no obligation to respond to these discovery requests. 

3. On de novo review, the parties will not conduct any discovery in this action,

including but not limited to any discovery regarding the standard of review or the merits of

Plaintiff's claims. 

4. Notwithstanding the above, if the parties’ stipulation regarding the application of

de novo review is rejected by the Court, Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of such

rejection to complete the discovery permitted in the Court’s Order of May 4, 2006.

DATED: June 20, 2006 LEWIS, FEINBERG, 

RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 

By: /s/ Teresa S. Renaker 

Teresa S. Renaker

Claire Kennedy-Wilkins 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DATED: June 23, 2006 GREEN & HUMBERT

By: Horace Green

Horace Green

Joanne Ryan

Attorneys for Defendants

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by

a “conformed” signature (/S/) within this efiled document.

Dated: June 23, 2006 /s/ Teresa S. Renaker

Teresa S. Renaker

Case 5:05-cv-00275-JF Document 41 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DE NOVO REVIEW 

[Case No. 05-00275 JF (PVT)] Page 3

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Good cause appearing, and as stipulated by the parties, the Court hereby orders that

Plaintiff’s claim for benefits in this case will be reviewed by the Court de novo. The limited

discovery authorized by the Court in its Order of May 4, 2006, and any discovery requests

served by Plaintiff, are rendered moot by the application of the de novo standard of review in

this case. Plaintiff shall withdraw any discovery requests served in this action and Defendants

shall have no obligation to respond. On de novo review, the parties shall not conduct any

discovery in this action, including but not limited to any discovery regarding the standard of

review or the merits of Plaintiff's claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____________, 2006 _______________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

June 27

Case 5:05-cv-00275-JF Document 41 Filed 06/28/06 Page 3 of 3