Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00249/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00249-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

1

 For the first time, at oral argument and after full discussion of the merits of plaintiff’s

motion, defendant asserted plaintiff’s motion was untimely. For purposes of resolving the

pending motion, this court finds plaintiff’s motion was timely brought and will not entertain

objections to production of the discovery ordered herein on the ground that compliance with the

court’s order cannot be made prior to the discovery cut-off. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BAKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 05-0249 MCE KJM

vs.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and production

of documents came on regularly for hearing February 1, 2006.1 Jeffrey Metzger appeared for

plaintiff. Alfred Sanderson appeared for defendant. Upon review of the documents in support

and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE

COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

In the circumstances of this case, the court finds discovery should be allowed

regarding the apparent conflict between defendant’s role as administrator and as the funding

Case 2:05-cv-00249-MCE -KJM Document 23 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

source of the ERISA disability benefit plan at issue. Cf. Tremain v. Bell Industries, Inc., 196

F.3d 970, 976-77 (9th Cir. 1999) (evidence outside administrative record may be considered by

district court in determining standard of review as threshold matter). With two exceptions, the

discovery sought is narrowly tailored to obtain information related to the apparent conflict, which

is undisputed. Accordingly, within twenty days from the date of this order, defendants shall

provide further responses to the interrogatories and produce, for copying and inspection,

documents responsive to the request for production of documents. With respect to document

request numbers 1 and 4, defendants’ production may be limited to responsive documents that

were in effect during the entire period of review leading up to and including termination of

Plaintiff’s benefits. 

DATED: February 2, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

baker.oah 

Case 2:05-cv-00249-MCE -KJM Document 23 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2