Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02289/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02289-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CIECHALSKI, No. C-06-02289 SBA (JCS)

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL [Docket No. 23]

TIFFANY & COMPANY, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Plaintiff, Anthony Ciechalski, filed a Motion to Compel (the “Motion”), which was heard

before the undersigned on April 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom A, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,

San Francisco, California. Laurence A. Padway appeared as counsel for Plaintiff. Dennis G.

Rolstad appeared as counsel for Defendant and the Real-Party-in-Interest. Having heard the

arguments of counsel, and based on the record in this matter, and for the reasons stated on the

record, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Defendant shall, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, answer the following

interrogatories:

(a) Interrogatory No. 1 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant

Tiffany & Co. Long-Term Disability Plan, provided, however, that the answer shall only be with

respect to any and all doctors who conducted or participated in medical reviews in connection with

Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits at issue in this matter.

(b) In addition, with respect to each doctor who conducted or participated in

medical reviews in connection with Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits at issue in this matter,

Plaintiff may propound an interrogatory inquiring how many of the reviews by those doctors for

Case 4:06-cv-02289-SBA Document 41 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Hartford ERISA disability claims reached conclusions favorable to the granting of disability

benefits, and how many reached conclusions favorable to the denial of the disability benefits.

(c) Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11, and 12, only to the following extent: Defendant

shall state each and every qualification of each and every doctor who conducted or participated in

the review of Plaintiff’s claims for disability benefits in this matter.

2. In addition, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall produce

the following documents:

(a) Documents responsive to Request Nos. 1 and 2 of Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production that refer to Plaintiff.

(b) Documents responsive to Request No. 3 of Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production.

Except as so ordered, the Motion is DENIED. No other discovery may be propounded

without the Court’s approval.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2007 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02289-SBA Document 41 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2