Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03579/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03579-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

1

 The parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 28, 29, and 35. Two letters from plaintiff,

dated January 13, 2006 and January 23, 2006, do not appear on the docket. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA STOTT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03579 SI

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY

The parties have filed a number of letter briefs concerning whether and to what extent plaintiff

should be allowed to take discovery.1 At the January 6, 2006 case management conference, the Court

indicated its view that plaintiff should be allowed to take limited discovery on the issue of whether

defendants had a conflict of interest because evidence of conflict of interest is relevant to determining

the standard of review. See Medford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 244 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1128-29 (D.

Nev. 2003); see also Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court directed

the parties to meet and confer on the scope of such discovery, and to present any remaining disputes to

the Court through supplemental letter briefs.

By letter dated January 20, 2006, defendants have offered to stipulate to a de novo review subject

to two conditions: (1) plaintiff must agree to no longer seek discovery, and (2) plaintiff must stipulate

that the Court’s review will be limited to the evidence in the administrative record. Defendants also

generally object to plaintiff’s discovery as not narrowly tailored to the conflict of interest issue, although

Case 3:05-cv-03579-SI Document 36 Filed 01/26/06 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

they fail to specify how any particular discovery request is overbroad. Plaintiff refuses to agree to

defendants’ conditional stipulation, contending that the district court has discretion to consider evidence

outside the administrative record when conducting a de novo review of a benefits decision. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that in reviewing administrative decisions in the ERISA context,

“new evidence may be considered under certain circumstances to enable the full exercise of informed

and independent judgment.” Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, 46 F.3d

938, 943 (9th Cir. 1995). The court has emphasized, however, that the district court should exercise this

discretion only when “circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct

an adequate de novo review of the benefit decision.” Id. (quoting Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of North

America, 987 F.2d 1017, 1025 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc)). 

The Court agrees with plaintiff that defendants’ stipulation to a de novo review does not entirely

moot the need for discovery, as it might be appropriate to allow some limited discovery directed at

supplementing the record. However, if defendants stipulate to a de novo review, the Court believes that

the scope of discovery would be narrower than it would in the absence of such a stipulation.

Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to engage in a further meet and confer regarding the

following: (1) whether the parties will stipulate to a de novo review; (2) if the parties stipulate to a de

novo review, what limited discovery will be conducted; and (3) if the parties do not stipulate to a de

novo review, defendants must identify which discovery requests are not narrowly tailored to the conflict

of interest issue. The parties shall conduct a further meet and confer by February 1, 2006, and if the

meet and confer is unsuccessful, shall file simultaneous letter briefs by February 3, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03579-SI Document 36 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2