Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02179/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02179-3/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.: Civil Enforcement of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEOFFREY MOYLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv2179-GPC (MDD)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

THE COURT’S ORDER ON THE

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

REGARDING PRIVILEGE

[ECF NO. 172]

vs.

LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT

BENEFIT PLAN, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 27, 2012, the Court ruled on the joint motion of the parties for a

determination of a discovery dispute regarding documents withheld on the basis of

attorney client and work product privilege. (ECF No. 160). At issue was the extent

to which the fiduciary exception to the attorney client privilege applied to the

withheld documents. The Court found that some documents properly were withheld

and that others were subject to the fiduciary exception and had to be disclosed. Id.

Defendants have moved the Court to reconsider its decision that certain Hewitt

documents, specifically those numbered Hewitt Priv 324-355, are to be disclosed. 

(ECF No. 172). The Court has reviewed the motion, the memorandum of points and

authorities submitted with the motion, the Declaration of Ashley Abel submitted

under seal and again reviewed the documents which had previously been submitted

for in camera review. The Court is not convinced that its earlier ruling was in error. 

- 1 - 10cv2179 GPC (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 177 Filed 10/15/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Discussion

Defendants assert that although the documents were created during the period

of time that Plaintiffs’ administrative claim was pending, the context in which those

documents were created mitigates in favor of privilege. The documents consist of an

electronic mail thread covering March 25, 2009, through April 9, 2009, reflecting

communications between John St. Martin, the now-deceased pension and savings

benefits manager of Liberty Mutual and personnel of Hewitt Associates, LLC, the

record-keeper of the Liberty Mutal Retirement Benefit Plan. At the time of the

communications, Plaintiffs’ initial claim for benefits had been denied by Mr. St.

Martin and the denial was pending review by Defendants’ Retirement Benefit Board. 

In his Declaration, Mr. Abel, outside litigation counsel for Liberty Mutual, asserts

that the communications were the result of requests that he made to Mr. St. Martin

for information in anticipation of litigation. Inasmuch as this is not obvious from the

content of the communications, and was not shown in the earlier motion, Defendants

have moved for reconsideration. See CivLR 7(i)(1). 

Despite the fact that the communications at issue were initiated by a query

from outside litigation counsel to Mr. St. Martin, the Court finds that the fiduciary

exception applies. The communications at issue involve calculations of plan benefits

under several hypothetical scenarios. In that regard, the communications appear

quite similar to those at issue in Stephan v. Unum Life Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ____, 2012

WL 3983767, *13 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2012). In finding the documents subject to the

fiduciary exception in that case, the Court of Appeals observed:

The documents at issue are notes of conversations between Unum

claims analysts and Unum’s in-house counsel about how the insurance

policy under which Stephan was covered ought to be interpreted and

whether Stephan’s bonus ought to be considered monthly earnings

within the meaning of the plan. 

Id. 

Here, the communications are alternative calculations of plan benefits based

- 2 - 10cv2179 GPC (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 177 Filed 10/15/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

upon different start dates. At the time of the communications, Plaintiffs’

administrative appeal had been pending for about one year and would not be decided

for another four months. As in Stephan, Mr. Abel’s Declaration notwithstanding, 

The context of the documents at issue here – communications in advance

of Unum’s decision on Stephan’s appeal – indicates that their goal was

the determination of Stephan’s pre-disability earnings, a matter of plan

administration, and was not preparation for litigation.

Id. Substitute Liberty Mutual for Unum, Plaintiffs for Stephan and determination of

benefits under different vesting scenarios for pre-disability earnings, and we have our

case. 

Defendants place great emphasis on the litigation history between Plaintiff

Moyle and Defendants. While it no doubt was true that Plaintiff would sue if he

received an adverse decision on his appeal, that fact does not mean that the interests

of the fiduciary and the plan beneficiary sufficiently had diverged at the time of the

communications. The Ninth Circuit has agreed with the courts that have held “that

it is not until after the final determination – that is, after the final administrative

appeal – that the interests of the Plan fiduciary and the beneficiary diverge for

purposes of the fiduciary exception.” Id. Nothing in the communications reflect that

they were in anticipation of litigation and there is no discussion of any possible

personal liability of the fiduciary. The context added by Defendants in support of

reconsideration, that these calculations were run at the request of Mr. Abel with

litigation in mind, does not change the fact that the various permutations of benefits

under different scenarios remain a matter of plan administration while the appeal

was pending. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

- 3 - 10cv2179 GPC (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 177 Filed 10/15/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

Conclusion

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Absent further order of the Court

or agreement of the parties, production of the disputed documents must occur no later

than October 25, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 4 - 10cv2179 GPC (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 177 Filed 10/15/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4