Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06214/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06214-1/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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDY E. CHAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH

AMERICA and FUJITSU BUSINESS

COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-06214 WHA

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE

The Court has received plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct further discovery. 

Plaintiff also pointed out that defendants had failed to submit the administrative record, as

previously ordered by the case management scheduling order. Specifically, plaintiff seeks

discovery regarding LINA’s purported conflict of interest, such as LINA’s claims

approval/denial history, the structure and organization of LINA’s claims department, claims

manuals, policies, procedures, guidelines, or other similar documents that explain how LINA

claims personnel are instructed to evaluate and make decisions on claims (i.e., how LINA uses

and relies on the reports of reviewing physicians), and the depositions of those individuals at

LINA who made the decision to terminate plaintiff’s benefits.

Three days after the filing of plaintiff’s request, defendants filed a “statement of

defendants re standard of review and submission of administrative record” (Dkt. No. 21). In

their statement, defendants assert that they did not file a motion for summary judgment and

Case 3:07-cv-06214-WHA Document 22 Filed 08/01/08 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

believe that the matter should be set for bench trial. They submitted the administrative record

and said that the appropriate standard of review was de novo. 

In light of defendants’ stipulation that the appropriate standard of review is de novo

rather than abuse of discretion, this order requests that both parties advise the Court whether or

not further discovery is needed. The request may or may not be granted, depending on the

breadth and necessity of the request. Responses are due by THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-06214-WHA Document 22 Filed 08/01/08 Page 2 of 2