Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01555/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01555-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDEL MURI, )

) 2:05-cv-1555-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

RALEY’S INC.; RALEY’S EMPLOYEE )

WELFARE PLAN; METROPOLITAN LIFE )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for

Discovery” in this ERISA action, requesting that “the Court issue an

order allowing discovery so that [P]laintiff can determine what

information was utilized in making the decision to terminate her

benefits.” (Pl.’s Notice of Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that such

an order is necessary because “the ‘administrative record,’ as

provided by [D]efendant[s] is incomplete.” (Pl.’s Mem. of P & A at

1.) Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court permit her to

request production of the complete administrative record, propound

interrogatories, and take depositions. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendants

oppose Plaintiff’s motion and argue that the entire administrative

record was presented to Plaintiff as part of Defendants’ initial

discovery disclosure. 

Plaintiff’s motion was heard on January 9, 2006. At the

hearing Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Defendants had not produced

Case 2:05-cv-01555-GEB-CMK Document 18 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 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

2

the entire administrative record. When the Court asked Defendants’

counsel whether she could definitively state that the complete

administrative record had been produced, counsel stated that it was

possible some documents had been inadvertently omitted or over-looked. 

Defendants’ counsel also indicated that Defendants would agree to

conducting an additional search to determine whether other documents

exist that constitute part of the administrative record, which were

not included in Defendants’ initial discovery disclosure; and would

file a declaration concerning the search. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed,

but indicated that interrogatories may be necessary concerning whether

Dr. Thomas and/or the nurse consultant wrote a report detailing the

review of Plaintiff’s claim file. Defendants’ counsel agreed that the

ensuing search will ascertain whether either referenced report was

prepared.

Defendants have agreed to produce to Plaintiff any documents

found during the referenced search that constitute part of the

administrative record, which were not included in Defendants’ initial

discovery disclosure, and to file a declaration or declarations

regarding Defendants’ search no later than thirty days from

January 9, 2006. Based upon this resolution of Plaintiff’s motion,

Plaintiff’s motion is either partly granted as stated in this Order,

or it is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 10, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01555-GEB-CMK Document 18 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2