Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02176/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02176-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA LEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendant. /

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Real Party in Interest.

 /

No. C 09-02176 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND AMENDING JULY 14, 2010 ORDER

RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

Defendant Kaiser Permanente Flexible Benefits Plan and real party in interest Metropolitan Life

Insurance Company (collectively “defendants”) seek leave for file a motion for reconsideration of a

portion of the Court’s July 14, 2010 Order Re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 48).

Specifically, defendants wish to challenge the Court’s ruling compelling them to produce statistical

information responsive to Document Requests 27, 28, 29 & 31. See July 14 Order at *6. Defendants

assert that the Court erred by stating that defendants did not object to these requests on grounds of

relevance, and ruling on the motion to compel solely on the basis of defendants’ objections regarding

the confidential nature of the information sought.

The motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED as unnecessary. Although

the Court wrongly stated in the July 14 Order that defendants had failed to object to the requests on

Case 3:09-cv-02176-JW Document 50 Filed 07/29/10 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

grounds of relevance, the Court now finds that the information sought is relevant to the conflict of

interest issue. The Court believes, however, that defendants’ additional objection regarding the burden

of producing the information sought is well-taken. Accordingly, the last paragraph in the July 14, 2010

Order, beginning at the bottom of page 6, is hereby AMENDED as follows:

With respect to the remaining requests, MetLife first objects on the ground the

information sought is irrelevant to the conflict of interest issue. The Court disagrees.

The information sought, in particular the statistics pertaining to claim approval and

maximization of profits, meet the minimum level of relevance sufficient to warrant

production. Additionally, to the extent the requests seek confidential business

information, MetLife may seek an appropriate protective order to protect its privacy

concerns. The Court has reviewed the document requests at issue, however, and believes

that in view of the burden to MetLife, document requests are not the most appropriate

means of obtaining the information plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff is therefore directed instead

to frame interrogatories to MetLife regarding the statistical information. 

The remainder of the July 14 Order shall be unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02176-JW Document 50 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 2