Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01795/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01795-0/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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE K. HAMMA, ) 2:07-cv-01795-GEB-CMK

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) ORDER*

)

INTEL CORPORATION; INTEL )

CORPORATION LONG TERM DISABILITY )

BENEFIT PLAN; INTEL DISABILITY )

APPEALS COMMITTEE; MATRIX ABSENCE )

MANAGEMENT, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff Denise K. Hamma brings this action to recover

benefits under the Intel Corporation Long Term Disability Benefit Plan

(“LTD Plan”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(“ERISA”). Defendants move for limited discovery seeking: “(1)

identification of specific documents upon which Plaintiff relies to

prove her claim and an actual conflict of interest, and (2)

Case 2:07-cv-01795-GEB-CMK Document 41 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 6
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 All subsequent references to Rules are to the Federal Rules of 1

Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

2

information regarding Plaintiff’s Social Security Disability payments

and other possible offsets.” (Defs.’ Mot. at 2:22-24.) Plaintiff

opposes the motion. Plaintiff moves for “specified discovery within

the confines of discovery allowed by Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins.

Co., 458 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006)” and for an order “requir[ing]

Defendants to provide full initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1:5-10; 2:1-2.) 1

Defendants oppose the motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff worked at Intel Corporation from June of 2000

through February of 2004. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff became disabled

due to illness in July of 2003. (Id. at ¶ 10.) In March of 2004,

Plaintiff filed a claim for long term disability benefits under the

LTD Plan. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Her claim and subsequent appeals to the

Intel Disability Appeals Committee were denied; Plaintiff filed this

action after exhausting all administrative remedies. (Id. at ¶ 26.)

In the parties’ Joint Status Report filed on November 13,

2007, they disagreed as to whether initial disclosures were required

under Rule 26(a)(1). The parties agreed, however, “that the Court's

review, and the corresponding scope of discovery, is limited to the

administrative record - i.e., the information and knowledge of the

individuals who made the decisions to deny Plaintiff benefits at the

time those decisions were made, the facts known to the decisionmakers. Evidence outside the administrative record may be considered

‘to decide the nature, extent, and effect on the decision-making

process of any conflict of interest’ . . . .” (Joint Status Report at

Case 2:07-cv-01795-GEB-CMK Document 41 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3:26-28, 4:1-4 (citing Abatie, 458 F.3d at 970).) A Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Order issued November 21, 2007 prescribing: “A party

desiring discovery [in this action] must file a motion that seeks

specified discovery, and the factual and legal basis justifying the

request . . . .” (Order, Nov. 21, 2007 at 2:8-10.)

ANALYSIS

I. Defendants’ Motion

A. Documents upon which Plaintiff relies

Defendants seek “identification of specific documents upon

which Plaintiff relies to prove her claim and an actual conflict of

interest . . . .” (Defs.’ Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff argues Defendants

already possess such evidence, it would be burdensome for Plaintiff to

identify each piece of objective medical evidence, and such

information constitutes attorney work product. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 3:9-

12, 5:2-9.) Defendant rejoins they do not seek documents or other

communications between Plaintiff and her attorney; they only seek

identification of documents that support Plaintiff’s claim. (Defs.’

Reply at 2:12-13.)

Defendants have not shown a need for the documents they

seek. Plaintiff has already identified several documents that support

her claims in her Complaint, and the parties agreed to filing cross

motions for summary judgment to decide this action. (Joint Status

Report at 3:4-6, 7:21-23.) Accordingly, this portion of Defendants’ 

motion is denied. 

B. Plaintiff's Social Security Disability payments

Defendants also seek the production of “information

regarding Plaintiff’s Social Security Disability payments and other

possible offsets.” (Defs.’ Mot. at 2:23-24.) Defendants argue the

Case 2:07-cv-01795-GEB-CMK Document 41 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

LTD Plan expressly provides for a reduction of Plan benefits for a

variety of circumstances, including Social Security disability

payments. (Defs.’ Mot. at 3:14-18; Ex. 2 (LTD Plan) at 3975-76.) 

Plaintiff argues this discovery is unnecessary and Defendants have

already been provided Plaintiff’s Social Security Award information. 

(Pl.’s Opp’n at 8:9-24.)

Defendants have not shown it is entitled to such discovery. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint merely seeks the Court to “order defendants to

retroactively approve and reinstate Ms. Hamma to the LTD Plan and to

order the payment of retroactive benefits and the payment of all

future benefits under the terms of the LTD Plan and Policy . . . .” 

(Compl. ¶ 26.) Defendants have not shown that the terms of the LTD

Plan and policy applicable to the discovery they seek are disputed in

this action. Therefore, this portion of Defendants’ motion is also

denied.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion

A. Discovery within Abatie

Plaintiff seeks leave “to conduct discovery, as allowed

consistent with [the] Ninth Circuit’s decision in Abatie II [herein

Abatie] and decisions within the Ninth Circuit before and since Abatie

II, and consistent with the parties’ Joint Status Report.” (Pl.’s

Mot. at 9:8-13.) Defendants oppose the motion arguing “Plaintiff’s

motion does not seek specified discovery, as required by the Court’s

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order of 11/21/07.” (Defs.’ Opp’n at

1:23-24.) In Abatie, the Ninth Circuit defined the scope of discovery

allowed in an ERISA case such as this one:

The district court may, in its discretion, consider

evidence outside the administrative record to decide

the nature, extent, and effect on the decision-making

process of any conflict of interest; the decision on

Case 2:07-cv-01795-GEB-CMK Document 41 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 6
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 scope of discovery allowed by Abatie and other decisions 2

is not determined herein. 

5

the merits, though, must rest on the administrative

record once the conflict (if any) has been established,

by extrinsic evidence or otherwise.

Abatie, 458 F.3d at 970. Since the parties agreed in the Joint Status

Report that the limited discovery contemplated by Abatie should be

allowed, this portion of Plaintiff’s motion is granted. 

2

B. Initial Disclosures

Plaintiff seeks a Court order requiring Defendants to

provide full initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1). 

Defendants argue initial disclosures are not required because an ERISA

case is an action for review on an administrative record, and falls

within an exception to Rule 26(a)(1). (Joint Status Report at 3:18-

19.) Plaintiff rejoins that “ERISA appeals are not ordinary

administrative appeals, and do not fall within the exclusion from

initial disclosures . . . .” (Pl.’s Mot. at 11:22-24; 12:1-3.) 

Rule 26(a)(1)(B)(I) prescribes: “an action for review on an

administrative record” is exempt from the initial disclosure

requirement. However, here the parties have agreed that discovery

outside the administrative record, authorized under the rationale of

Abatie, is permitted. Therefore, initial disclosures concerning such

information shall be made. See Coleman v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 432

F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (allowing initial disclosures

in an ERISA case). 

C. Whether the LTD Plan is an ERISA Plan

Plaintiff also moves for discovery on “whether the Intel LTD

Plan is an ERISA plan.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 11:3-4.) Defendants rejoin

that this “has been established by the specific allegations of

Case 2:07-cv-01795-GEB-CMK Document 41 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Plaintiff’s Complaint . . . and the corresponding admissions in the

Plan’s Answer.” (Defs.’ Opp’n at 4, n1.) Plaintiff has not shown why

this information is necessary in light of the pleadings. (See Intel

Corporation/LTD Plan Answer, Docket # 12 at ¶ 5.) Therefore, this

portion of Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

SUMMARY

Defendants’ motion for specified discovery (Docket #28) is

denied. Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (Docket #36) is granted in

part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01795-GEB-CMK Document 41 Filed 03/04/08 Page 6 of 6