Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00275/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00275-4/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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

2 This motion is technically unnecessary, because discovery is open and no order

precluding discovery has been issued. Where the scope of discovery in ERISA cases is not determined

in the first Case Management Conference (when discovery has just opened), the usual means for

raising the issue is via a motion for protection brought by the ERISA defendants. See, e.g., Frost v.

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 414 F.Supp.2d 961 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JULIE SCOTT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-0275 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT

DISCOVERY

On May 4, 2006, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for

hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery.1 Based on the briefs and arguments

presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion2 is GRANTED for the reasons stated

here. However, the scope of discovery in this case is limited to: 1) the administration of Plaintiff’s

claim; 2) communications regarding administration of Plaintiff’s claim; and 3) Defendants’ policies

Case 5:05-cv-00275-JF Document 37 Filed 05/04/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 3 The other case relied on by Defendants, Brown v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co.,

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5059 (N.D. Cal. 2004), is an unpublished decision.

ORDER, page 2

and procedures for administering claims under the specific plan at issue in this action (not “any”

ERISA plan administered by Defendants).

The reasoning in the case primarily relied on by Defendants, Newman v. Standard Ins. Co.,

997 F.Supp. 1276 (C.D. Cal. 1998),3 was rejected in the better-reasoned case, Klund v. High

Technology Solutions, Inc., 417 F.Supp. 1155 (S.D. Cal. 2005). As noted by the judge in Klund, “the

only effective way for an ERISA plaintiff to enforce the right to present evidence of conflict of

interest is to preserve his or her ability to discover such evidence. * * * * the Newman rule, as

explained above, results in granting such a plaintiff a right without a remedy.”

Nothing in ERISA expressly modifies the scope of discovery, which encompasses “any

matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” See FED.R.CIV.PRO.

26(b)(1). Limitations on this scope of discovery is available under Rule 26(c), which authorizes the

court to protect a party from undue burden or expense. In that regard, to the extent it appears in a

given ERISA case that discovery would be unlikely to lead to any admissible evidence, a protective

order limiting the scope of discovery–or even precluding discovery–may be appropriate.

In the present case, Defendants have not shown that a complete bar on discovery is

warranted. Clearly there was some degree of irregularity in the handling of Plaintiff’s claim. She is

entitled to conduct some discovery into whether that irregularity warrants application of de novo

review when the District Court reviews the merits of her case, as well as into whether the

irregularities amounted to a breach of duty to administer the plan that warrants relief under Section

502(a)(3) of ERISA.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, absent further order of the court or written agreement of

the parties, the parties shall be limited to fifteen requests for production per side, fifteen

interrogatories per side, fifteen requests for admission per side, and three depositions per side.

Dated: 5/4/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00275-JF Document 37 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 2