Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02385/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02385-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leslie DeMarco,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Life Insurance Company of North America,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-02385-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

This is an ERISA case. In their Rule 26(f) report, the parties noted that they disagree 

over whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery, and if so, what the scope of that discovery 

should be. (Doc. 18 at 7-8.) Specifically, Plaintiff stated that she believes “de novo review” 

applies in this case and that she is therefore “entitled to engage in discovery consistent with 

Opeta v. Northwest Airlines Pension Plan, 484 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2007),” which will 

likely include “no more than 4 depositions.” (Id. at 7.) Meanwhile, Defendant stated that 

“[b]ecause the plan confers discretion on LINA, the abuse of discretion standard applies. 

While some discovery into the dual-role conflict (or structural conflict) may be appropriate, 

the discovery must be narrowly-tailored to the facts of the specific case. Any conflict 

discovery can typically be accomplished through written discovery, without the need for 

depositions. LINA asks the Court to place a modest limit on written discovery and, if any

depositions are permitted, to limit the number and amount of time permitted.” (Id.)

Based on these representations, the Court issued a scheduling order that, among 

other things, set a deadline for discovery-related briefing. (Doc. 20 at 2.) The relevant 

Case 2:19-cv-02385-DWL Document 24 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 3
- 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

27

28

paragraph of the scheduling order provides that “[i]f there is a dispute as to the need for 

and/or scope of discovery, the deadline for Plaintiff(s) to submit a brief concerning its 

position shall be September 17, 2019. This brief may be no longer than seven pages long, 

must identify—with specificity—any interrogatories, document requests, requests for 

admission, and/or depositions that Plaintiff(s) would like to pursue, and must set forth any 

legal authority supporting Plaintiff(s)’ position. The deadline for Defendant(s) to file a 

response, which may not exceed seven pages in length, shall be October 17, 2019. No 

replies may be filed.” (Id.)

Now pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion to vacate these 

deadlines. (Doc. 23.) In a nutshell, the parties argue that because they “disagree regarding 

the standard of review for the Court to apply in this matter, i.e. de novo or discretionary,” 

they “believe the most efficient manner in which to litigate the case is for the standard of 

review issue to be briefed first with the Court deciding the issue. The standard of review 

will then inform the parties’ briefing regarding whether discovery is permitted, and if so, 

the scope of discovery the Court may allow.” (Id. at 2.)

This request will be denied. Although the scope of discovery may depend on the 

applicable standard of review, there’s no reason why the parties can’t brief both of these 

interrelated issues in the single set of briefs. Bifurcating the briefing schedule in the 

manner suggested by the parties—i.e., the parties first brief the standard-of-review issue, 

then the Court reads the briefs and issues an order on that issue, then the parties submit 

another set of briefs addressing the scope of discovery, and then the Court issues another 

order after reading another set of briefs—would not promote judicial economy and would 

unnecessarily slow down the resolution of this case. 

The Court will, however, increase the page limits set forth in the scheduling order. 

This change should give the parties the ability to address all of the relevant issues.

...

...

...

Case 2:19-cv-02385-DWL Document 24 Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated motion for an expedited 

order to vacate the current briefing schedule (Doc. 23) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the page limits set forth in paragraph four of 

the scheduling order (Doc. 20) are modified such that each party’s brief regarding 

discovery may not exceed 11 pages.

Dated this 9th day of September, 2019.

Case 2:19-cv-02385-DWL Document 24 Filed 09/10/19 Page 3 of 3