Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02965-3/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.: 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF 

CANADA,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-02965-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 35

On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed the instant Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act ("ERISA") case against Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, alleging 

that Defendant terminated her long-term disability claim. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, Dkt. No. 1.) On 

February 6, 2019, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Plaintiff's request for all 

instant messaging ("IM") notes or memos generated by Defendant during its administration of 

Plaintiff's claim. (Discovery Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant generates 

IM notes or memos in administering long-term disability claims, but that Defendant did not 

provide any IM notes or memos in the ERISA administrative record. (Id.) Defendant responds 

that it has provided a complete administrative record. (Id. at 2.)

The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for further production; the Court cannot compel 

Defendant to produce documents that do not exist. Defendant states that it has no IMs, and that to 

the extent Plaintiff is arguing there are specific documents Defendant did not include in the 

administrative record, no such documents exist. (Discovery Letter at 2-3.) While Plaintiff argues 

that the administrative record must include "documents generated in the course of making the 

benefit determination, without regard to whether such document, record, or other information was 

relied upon in making the benefit determination," Defendant asserts that it has done so. (Id. at 2.) 

Case 4:18-cv-02965-HSG Document 36 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Specifically, Defendant states that it not only produced documents it relied upon, but that it has 

also "produced documents that it generated; produced documents that it considered; and produced 

documents it evaluated." (Id.) Thus, there is no reason for the Court to believe any documents are 

being improperly withheld.

In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be required to provide a sworn 

declaration hat no IM memos or notes were generated that relate or refer to Plaintiff or her claim. 

(Discovery Letter at 2.) Plaintiff provides no legal authority for such a requirement, and the Court 

finds this requirement unnecessary. Again, Defendant has stated that no such documents exist; a 

sworn affidavit to that effect is not needed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-02965-HSG Document 36 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 2