Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
Defendant
Marcia Starr-Gordon
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

 At the December 16, 2004 hearing, the court found defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s

fourth set of interrogatories were satisfactory. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel further

responses is denied. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIA STARR-GORDON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0068 LKK GGH

vs.

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

___________________________________/

Presently before the court are discovery disputes remaining after two hearings on

plaintiff’s motions to compel production of documents, sets five and six, and for sanctions, filed

November 24 and December 15, 2004, and heard on December 16, 2004, and January 21, 2005. 

Also on January 21 the court held an evidentiary hearing to address in part concerns regarding

defendant’s document production in response to the fifth set. In the December 28, 2004 order, the

court limited the evidentiary hearing to the time period from January 15, 1999 through December,

2003. After resolving some disputes at hearing and ordering further status reports after hearing,

the court has now considered the remaining disputes which concern plaintiff’s motion to compel

fifth and sixth sets of requests for production of documents, and plaintiff’s request for sanctions.1

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 10
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

2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff contends she is disabled from her dental hygienist position due to back

and shoulder problems. Defendant is plaintiff’s disability income insurer on a policy issued in

June, 1991. After paying plaintiff disability income insurance benefits for approximately one

year’s disability, commencing December, 2000, defendant discontinued them in December, 2001. 

In this diversity action plaintiff contends, pursuant to California law, that defendant

terminated her disability income insurance benefits in breach of contract, and did so in bad faith. 

Plaintiff also has a claim of unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. 

Plaintiff’s first motion to compel relating to the instant discovery was heard on

December 16, 2004. At that time, the court denied plaintiff’s motion as it related to interrogatory

21 of the fourth set of interrogatories, finding that defendant’s responses were satisfactory. In

regard to plaintiff’s fifth set of requests for production of documents, the original document

requests at issue concerned documents previously produced by defendant in regard to its

“Knowledge Net” system, which was its online claims handling manual/resource for claims

adjusters employed by the Disability Insurance Strategic Business (“DISB”) unit. Through these

documents, plaintiff seeks to show that during the calendar year 2001, when defendant terminated

plaintiff’s claim, it had a business plan to terminate or deny more claims that its pricing model had

assumed, so it could release more reserves and improve its profitability. 

Defendant originally refused to produce the documents, claiming they were

confidential and proprietary, and also represented that production was ongoing due to the massive

number of documents being produced. As a result, the court ordered plaintiff to file a statement

on December 22, 2004, after receiving further production from defendant. Plaintiff continued to

seek documents which defendant claimed it did not have in its possession. During this time

period, defendant complied with many of the requests and finally produced a privilege log. Based

on plaintiff’s statement, the court on December 28, 2004 ordered an evidentiary hearing in order

for defendant to produce a witness knowledgeable regarding defendant’s production in response

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 10
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

3

to the fifth set, and to explain gaps in production and other missing documents as set forth in Dean

Burnick’s affidavit of December 22, 2004. The witness was also to testify regarding

Massachusetts Mutual’s efforts to produce relevant paper and electronic documents. 

On January 21, 2005, defendant produced Ms. Dzienjelewski, the Director of

Management Information for the Disability Income Line of Business. She testified to defendant’s

efforts to locate responsive documents. Plaintiff’s contention at the start of the hearing was that

she wanted documents regarding Claims Department updates whereas the KPI reports focused on

the business plan and had already been produced in full. Plaintiff opined that Ms. Dzienjelewski

was not the appropriate witness because she was involved in producing KPI reports and did not

work in the Claims Department. This witness’ testimony, however, indicates that she coordinated

the document search with employees from various departments, including the Claims Department. 

All told, twenty people at Massachusetts Mutual had been searching for responsive documents

since July or August, 2004, and Ms. Dzienjelewski testified that she personally had spent at least a

month of her time searching for documents. (Tr. at 71:4-14.) The bottom line of the testimony

was that she had searched thoroughly, and had others search thoroughly, and there was nowhere

else they could search. (Tr. at 103:4.) 

The January 21, 2005 hearing was also intended to address plaintiff’s motion to

compel her sixth set of requests for production of documents, filed December 16, 2004, and

originally noticed for hearing on January 6, 2005. The January 21 hearing did not focus on this

set, however, and therefore oral argument has not been entertained in regard to these documents. 

It appears that defendant complied with most of the requests, leaving only two categories of

documents at issue, those relating to defendant’s decision to stop insuring dental hygienists, and

investment income documents relating to disgorgement. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of

disgorgement of illicit profits obtained as a result of allegedly withholding benefits and collecting

premiums which were not owed. 

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 3 of 10
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

4

Most recently, in February, 2005, both parties filed status reports regarding both

sets five and six. They have set forth the categories of document requests still at issue and their

respective arguments.

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff’s Fifth Set of Requests for Production of Documents

A. Monthly Denial/Termination Reports

Defendant has already produced a witness who testified regarding the search and

gaps in production. Ms. Dzienjelewski testified that these reports were generated by the Claims

Department, that she did not know how they were kept after being generated, that the reason for

the gaps may have been because they were not created during those time periods, but she was not

sure. (Tr. at 110.) She did have discussions with the Claims Department regarding the gaps at a

large December meeting, but could not remember whether anyone from this department knew

whether such documents were generated during the missing time periods. (Id. at 111.) Although

she did not have much recollection, she thought the individuals in this department “felt that it

wasn’t done all the time.” (Id.) In general, documents for which there were gaps were either not

generated regularly or the data could not be located. (Id. at 111-12.) Plaintiff is not satisfied with

this lack of specific knowledge and recollection. Nevertheless, this witness testified that she and

other personnel searched for missing documents, regardless of the time period, and that

documents are not out there that she and others were not finding. (Id. at 114, 85.) 

Defendant cannot be ordered to produce documents that are not in its possession. 

Plaintiff may attempt to use the significance of gaps at trial to create an inference, especially

concerning gaps during the time period surrounding termination of plaintiff’s benefits; however,

defendant has met its discovery obligations.

B. Claims Department Updates

Although Claims Examiner Paul Montanari testified that these updates were

generated monthly, Ms. Dzienzjelewski testified at the evidentiary hearing that her search, which

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 4 of 10
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

5

included searches by Claims Department individuals, did not turn up further updates than what

was already produced. She stated that several people, including the Claims Department head, all

of the claims managers, and “pretty much the whole department” searched for Claims Department

updates. (Tr. at 75, 84.) These Claims Department employees searched on their own computers,

and all of them reported back to her. (Id. at 83.) In fact, she and the entire Claims Department

brainstormed to identify every kind of document which would have been generated and would

have contained the same information. (Tr. at 86-87.) She contacted former employees and former

heads of the Claims Department so their files could be searched also. (Id. at 102.) 

Ms. Dzienzjelewski also testified that there are gaps in production of these reports

because they were created on an ad hoc basis, and not regularly, and that Claims Department staff

conveyed this information to her as well. (Id. at 76, 83.) She specifically testified that there were

no claims Department updates generated between February, 2000 and October, 2001. (Id. at 77.) 

She and others searched for both electronic and paper documents. (Id. at 75, 77:7-8.) 

Based on this witness’ testimony, the court finds the search for this category of

documents was satisfactory.

C. Examiner Activity Report Documents

The testimony of Ms. Dzienzjelewski satisfactorily explains that reports were not

produced because “somebody didn’t save it,” and that the same information sought by plaintiff

can be found in other documents such as the KPI reports. (Tr. at 125.) She stated that she was not

sure when these reports were first generated, but that they ceased being generated in January,

2004. (Id. at 121, 122.) Defendant has produced the documents within its possession. It will not

be ordered to produce a 30(b)(6) deponent to testify regarding the same subject matter about

which Ms. Dzienzjelewski already testified.

D. Approval Rate by Examiner

Plaintiff asserts that defendant produced these documents only for the years 2002

and 2003, but did not produce them for 1999 through 2001. At the evidentiary hearing, plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 5 of 10
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

6

did not question witness Dzienzjelewski about these documents. Defendant has maintained that it

conducted a diligent search and was not able to locate these reports for the missing time periods. 

Because plaintiff failed to get a statement from defendant’s representative under

oath, defendant’s unsworn representation that it conducted a diligent search and could not locate

these documents will be accepted.

E. Redactions

Plaintiff seeks to have already produced documents reproduced in unredacted form. 

The categories of redacted material are comprised of 2004 data and policyholder data. 

1. 2004 Data

As stated at the hearing, defendant’s actions in redacting information outside the

relevant 1999 - 2003 time period because it was on the same document as relevant information

may have been improper; however, the court will not task defendant with unredacting this

information now. Plaintiff has not substantiated any claim that defendant redacted information

which may be pertinent to plaintiff’s claim or the pertinent time period.

2. Policyholder Data

Plaintiff claims that all documents produced by defendant have redacted the name,

claim number and policy number. Because plaintiff contends she has received waivers from 150

policyholders whose claims were terminated or denied, their information should not have been

redacted, especially in light of the fact that defendant could not locate all of the claims files for

these individuals. Plaintiff’s current requests belie her past representations concerning the need

for unredacted information which focused only on reserve information. To raise this argument

after defendant has produced over 17,000 pages of documents responsive to the fifth set places an 

unfair burden on defendant. Furthermore, defendant has complied with prior requests concerning

redaction of certain reserve information by reproducing documents in unredacted form. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 6 of 10
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

2

 Ca. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17203 requires that an unfair practices plaintiff comply with

Cal. Code Civ. P. 382, the general class action statute in California law. This provision was

added by voter initiative (Proposition 64) in November 2004, and the vast majority of California

appellate cases have held that it is retroactive. See e.g., Lytwyn v. Fry’s Electronics, 126 Cal.

App.4th 1455, 1481, 25 Cal. Rptr.3d 791, 812 (2005). It is beyond the purpose of this footnote

to describe California class actions, but such actions rely heavily on Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. See

Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal. App.4th 930, 14 Cal. Rptr.3d 751 (2004) and quite

possibly Cal. Civil Code § 1781 (consumer class action) as well as California Rules of Court. 

While such state rules would not be applicable in federal court, in all probability, an unfair

practices plaintiff in federal court would now have to seek some type of class certification under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 in order to get any class type relief. How else could one define the unjust

enrichment to be disgorged?

7

F. Documents Concerning 2004 and 2005

Plaintiff continues to seek documents covering the time period after 2003, despite

this court’s prior order that the evidentiary hearing would cover documents only between January,

1999 and December, 2003. Order, filed December 28, 2004. Plaintiff argues that current

documents are relevant because defendant’s current claims handling practices are relevant to

defendant’s continuing obligation to adjust plaintiff’s claim as it never processed her appeal of the

termination. Plaintiff further argues that to obtain injunctive relief for unfair business practices,

she must show that the practice is continuing. 

Although § 17202 provides for injunctive relief, the only such injunctive relief

requested by plaintiff is the stripping of defendant’s unjust enrichment. The complaint in this

matter requests a disgorgement of unjust enrichment only up to the time of the complaint’s filing. 

No supplemental complaint has been filed. Moreover, no class has been certified in this case,2

and the undersigned maintains his serious doubts that plaintiffs will be awarded a windfall of

unjust enrichment occasioned by the loss of persons other than plaintiff; the undersigned has

doubts that plaintiff can recover unjust enrichment at all. See Order of March 5, 2004. The only

reason the undersigned has proceeded to allow discovery relevant to the § 17200 “class” claim is

for the reason that defendant has taken no steps to have it dismissed, defined, or diminished by the

district judge. But there are limits, and the undersigned’s present temporal limitations have 

defined them for discovery purposes. Plaintiff’s request for documents after December 2003 is

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 7 of 10
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

3

 The request for decision making documents is request number 58. Defendant’s

production was responsive to request number 57, which sought documents regarding defendant’s

loss experience with dental hygienists.

8

denied. 

II. Plaintiff’s Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents

A. Spot Bonuses

Both parties agree that this dispute is resolved, but have outlined their efforts in the

face of their opponent’s lack of cooperation anyway, presumably to lay the groundwork for a

sanctions request.

B. Documents Regarding Decision to Stop Insuring Dental Hygienists

Although defendant eventually agreed to produce documents concerning its

decision to stop insuring dental hygienists after plaintiff gave notice she was moving to compel,

plaintiff is not satisfied with defendant’s production of documents for December, 1998 to

December, 2002 only. The documents produced do not include any of the decision making

documents, and defendant represented that it found no such documents.3 Plaintiff concedes that

she did not question the custodial witness, Ms. Dziengelewski, regarding this representation,

explaining that the testimony was focused on set five. 

Although the scope of discovery is generally broad, it is not unlimited; the requests

must be relevant and cannot be unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or unnecessarily

burdensome in light of their benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2); Oppenheimer, 437 U.S. 340, 352,

98 S. Ct. 2380, 2390 (1978). A district court has broad discretion in controlling discovery, Little

v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988), and in determining whether discovery is

burdensome and oppressive. Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil. Inc., 157 F.R.D. 691, 696

(D.Nev.1994). The question, then, is whether, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(iii), the burden of the

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. The court should take “into account the needs of

the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 8 of 10
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

4

 Plaintiff’s report references production of documents by defendant in response to

requests numbered 57 and 58 for the time period from December, 1998 to December, 2002,

which is not the time period delineated by the court.

9

the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.” Advisory

Committee Comment to 2000 amendments to Rule 26. 

Defendant must be taken at its word that there were no decision making

documents, but only so long as its representation covers the time period set out by the court,

January, 1999 through December, 2003.4 Beyond December, 2003, any decision making becomes

remote to plaintiff, and if she is to represent a class, she should be similarly situated to the other

members. 

Plaintiff’s request is denied insofar as defendant has no documents responsive to

request number 58, for the time period from January, 1999 through December, 2003.

C. Investment Income Documents Pertaining to Disgorgement

Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of illicit profits as one form of relief. Plaintiff alleges

that defendant improperly withheld benefits and collected premiums which plaintiff did not owe

and earned investment profit on those funds. To prove the amount, plaintiff seeks documents

indicating return on invested funds from the first quarter of 1998 to the third quarter of 2001, and

for 2004 and 2005. Defendant has produced documents for the intervening period. Plaintiff states

that KPI reports have included this information since April, 2002. 

Defendant objects, claiming that plaintiff has not submitted a single affidavit from

any damages expert stating why additional information is necessary. Defendant also contends that

plaintiff has the information in KPI reports already produced, which show the rate of return

information for the prior year. Defendant has submitted an affidavit from Dan Skwire, its damage

expert, stating that the KPI reports already produced are sufficient to permit someone “to

understand trends in financial results ... experienced by MassMutual during the time period from

January, 1999 to December, 2003.” Exh. N to Defendant’s Report, ¶ 8. 

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 9 of 10
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

10

Based on the dates alleged in the complaint which set forth the time period during

which defendant had improper use of plaintiff’s premiums and withheld her benefits, the financial

documentation already provided to plaintiff is sufficient to determine the amount of disgorgement. 

Plaintiff’s request for further document production is denied. 

D. Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $43,888.73. Defendant seeks

sanctions in an unspecified amount. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(C) provides that “[i]f [a motion to

compel] is granted in part and denied in part,” as provided by the instant order, “the court may . . .

apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and

persons in a just manner.” The court finds that both parties made substantial efforts to cooperate

after the motions were filed, alleviating the need for the court to resolve many of the disputes, and

they were both “substantially justified.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(4)(A). Therefore each party shall

bear its own costs. Neither party is awarded sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 24, 2004 motion to compel further responses to fourth set

of interrogatories is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s November 24 and December 15, 2004, motions to compel responses

to plaintiff’s fifth set of requests for production of documents, is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s December 15, 2004, motion to compel responses to plaintiff’s sixth

set of requests for production of documents, is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s November 24 and December 15, 2004, requests for sanctions are

denied.

DATED: 4/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

GGH:076 - starr68.doc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00068-LKK -GGH Document 123 Filed 04/21/05 Page 10 of 10