Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01373/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01373-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Counter Claimant
Daniela Robinson
Counter Defendant

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIELA ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-1373 JAM AC 

ORDER 

 On July 17, 2013, the court held a hearing on plaintiff’s May 30, 2013 motion to compel. 

Daniel Glass appeared for plaintiff. Rebecca Hull appeared for defendant. On review of the 

parties’ joint discovery statement, on hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing 

therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A. Facts Underlying Litigation 

 Plaintiff was employed at St. Joseph’s Hospital (“SJH”) in Stockton, California, a hospital 

owned and operated by Catholic Healthcare West (“CHW”), a “Qualified Catholic Organization” 

pursuant to the IRS. Plaintiff claims she became disabled as a result of complications arising 

from a gastric bypass surgery she underwent in January 2006. When plaintiff applied for 

disability benefits, the CHW Health and Benefit Plan (“the Plan”) contained language that it was 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 1 of 9
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

governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).1 Defendant 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) paid plaintiff disability benefits from the Plan 

from November 2007 through August 2010. After August 2010, MetLife stopped paying 

benefits. This action arises from defendant’s decision to stop these payments. 

B. Procedural Background 

 Plaintiff filed suit on May 21, 2012 on claims of breach of the duty of good faith and fair 

dealing and breach of contract. On receipt of the parties’ September 5, 2012 joint status report, 

the Honorable John A. Mendez issued a minute order directing the parties to brief the question of 

whether plaintiff’s claim is subject to ERISA rather than state law. Defendant claimed ERISA 

applied whereas plaintiff asserted that the Plan was a “church plan” that is exempt from ERISA. 

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on this issue on January 23, 2013. 

 During the pendency of that motion, plaintiff propounded discovery. These discovery 

requests, which plaintiff intended to use to oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment, 

were directed to defendant’s position regarding the applicability of ERISA to the church plan. 

Defendant refused to respond to or comply with these requests on the ground that it believed this 

matter is covered by ERISA and thus the scope of discovery is limited. Plaintiff filed a motion to 

compel on January 30, 2013. 

 On March 27, 2013, Judge Mendez issued an order denying defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. ECF No. 30. There, Judge Mendez held the following: (1) the Plan is a 

church plan that is generally exempt from ERISA; (2) however, ERISA applies to church plans 

that make a valid election under 26 U.S.C. § 410(d) to opt in to the ERISA regulatory scheme; (3) 

the Plan made a valid § 410(d) election in 2007 and therefore is governed by ERISA; (4) but 

plaintiff’s disability predates the effective date of the § 410(d) election and, since the election is 

not retroactive, plaintiff’s claims are not governed by ERISA. 

 

1

 ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension plans in private industry. 

ERISA requires plans to provide participants with information about the plan, including 

information about plan features and funding; sets minimum standards for participation, vesting, 

benefit accrual and funding; requires accountability of plan fiduciaries; and gives participants the 

right to sue for benefits and breaches of fiduciary duty. 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 2 of 9
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

 Based on plaintiff’s representation that the discovery sought was directed to the thenpending motion for summary judgment and based on Judge Mendez’s holding that ERISA does 

not apply to plaintiff’s claims in this action, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s January 30, 2013 

motion to compel. ECF No. 33. 

C. Discovery Dispute 

 On May 30, 2013, plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel defendant to respond to 

interrogatories and to produce documents. ECF No. 34. In dispute are defendant’s responses to 

Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 6, and 8, and Requests for Production Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7. This 

discovery is directed to determining why MetLife handled plaintiff’s claim under ERISA. 

 Based on the representations of the parties in the joint discovery statement and at the July 

17, 2013 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel, the following dates are relevant to the analysis 

herein: 

 In 1996 and 2001, two judges from the Eastern District of California issued rulings in 

separate cases finding that the CHW Health and Benefit Plan was a “church plan” that was 

exempt from ERISA. 

 In 2002, the CHW Plan documents were amended to include language that ERISA applied 

to the Plan. At the time and at all times prior, Met Life was not the Plan Administrator. 

 On December 31, 2004, MetLife first became involved in the Plan when it issued a Group 

Term Life and Accident Health Insurance Policy, No. 114178-1-G, to CHW. This 

insurance policy did not include a long term disability (“LTD”) benefits plan. 

 On January 1, 2007, MetLife added an ERISA-based LTD policy to the Plan coverage it 

provided to CHW. 

 On October 15, 2007, CHW made a formal election to be covered by ERISA. 

 Plaintiff submitted a claim for LTD benefits to CHW on April 18, 2008. 

 The crux of plaintiff’s position is that the discovery sought will help explain how and why 

defendant issued its ERISA-based policy to an ERISA-exempt “church plan” almost ten months 

before CHW formally elected to be governed by ERISA. Plaintiff also seeks discovery related to 

how or why the Plan was amended in 2002 to reflect that it was covered by ERISA. 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 3 of 9
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

Plaintiff argues that nothing changed between 2001, when CHW was found to be exempt from 

ERISA, and 2007, when CHW formally elected to be governed by ERISA. Yet in 2002, the Plan 

documents were changed to indicate that ERISA applied, and in January 2007 MetLife sold an 

ERISA-based policy to CHW. In light of this timeline, and because application of ERISA to 

disability claims allegedly has adverse effects on claimants, plaintiff contends that her bad faith 

claim would be supported by evidence that CHW represented to MetLife on its application for 

insurance that it was an ERISA-exempt “church plan” and that MetLife issued an ERISA-based 

LTD policy anyway. Conversely, if CHW represented that it was not a “church plan” at any time 

after 2001 and before October 15, 2007, then CHW should be a party to this action since it 

breached the fiduciary duty it owed to its 35,500 participants. 

 Defendant counters that how or why MetLife understood that ERISA applied to plaintiff’s 

claim has already been answered months ago: MetLife administered the LTD benefits under 

ERISA for the simple reason that it was provided with Plan documents saying that the Plan 

operated under ERISA. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

 All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. 

In defining the scope and limits of discovery, Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery on matters relevant 

to the parties’ claims and defenses. “For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter 

relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant 

information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead 

to discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. 

 Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) requires a court to limit discovery that is otherwise allowed by the 

rule, if the court determines that the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, 

considering the needs of the case or the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. Rule 

26 also gives district courts broad latitude to limit the extent of discovery to protect a party or 

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or other improper purposes. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), 6(g)(1)(B)(ii). 

//// 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 4 of 9
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 

5

DISCUSSION 

A. Interrogatories 

1. The Interrogatories at Issue 

Interrogatory No. 1: Identify each person answering these 

interrogatories, supplying information, or assisting in any way with 

the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. 

Interrogatory No. 6: State the name of the person, or persons, 

affiliated with the Catholic Healthcare West Health and Benefit 

Plan who represented to MetLife, at any time over the past 10 

years, that the Catholic Healthcare West Health and Benefit Plan 

was subject to the rules of [sic] regulations of ERISA. 

Interrogatory No. 8: State the name, address and telephone number 

of the person, persons, and/or entity which first sold Group Policy 

No. 114178-1-G to Catholic Healthcare West. 

2. Analysis 

a. Verified Responses 

 First, plaintiff claims generally that he has not received verified responses to the 

interrogatories and now seeks an order directing defendant to identify who prepared the 

responses. Plaintiff asserts that, even if MetLife’s lawyers are responsible for “manufacturing” 

discovery responses, plaintiff is entitled to verified responses so that she will have the right, and 

opportunity, to depose the persons who “manufactured” these responses in order to determine 

their basis, if any. 

 Defendant counters that counsel prepared the objections, not any fact witnesses, and 

therefore identification and verification were unnecessary. 

 The law is well-settled that “[t]he person who makes the answers must sign them, and the 

attorney who objects must sign any objections.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5); Schwarzer, Tashima & 

Wagstaffe, Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial § 11:1772 (2013) (“No verification is required where the 

response consists solely of one or more objections. In such cases, the reason for the objection 

must be stated, and the objection must be signed by the attorney.”) (emphasis in original). To the 

extent that defendant’s objections to any interrogatories are not signed by an attorney, defendant 

shall correct this mistake immediately. 

 However, it is also well-settled that “[o]bjecting to an entire set of interrogatories is rarely 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 5 of 9
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

proper. Responses usually consist of a mixture of answers and objections and are signed by the 

attorney and verified by the responding party.” Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, supra, § 

11:1772 (emphasis in original). It is unclear whether defendant objected to all of plaintiff’s 

interrogatories or only those at issue here. While that matter is not before the undersigned now, 

the court will note in passing that, to the extent defendant’s objections are based on its former 

position regarding the unavailability of discovery due to the applicability of ERISA, that 

objection has now been overruled by Judge Mendez’s order. 

b. Identification of CHW Representative(s) 

 Plaintiff next seeks further responses from MetLife in order to determine why MetLife 

issued an ERISA-based policy to CHW ten months before CHW made a formal election to be 

governed by ERISA. Specifically, plaintiff asks for the identification of CHW representatives 

who, at any time over the last ten years, asserted that ERISA applies to the Plan. 

 Defendant argues that it applied ERISA to LTD benefits claims (including plaintiff’s 

claim) because the Plan documents themselves have stated since 2002 that ERISA applied. 

CHW, whether correctly or incorrectly, plainly believed that the Plan was subject to ERISA. 

MetLife has also stated that it would be impossible to identify a specific person from CHW who 

may have mentioned to a MetLife employee that the Plan documents provide that the Plan is 

subject to ERISA. Even if they could specify a person, this information would be irrelevant 

because the documents themselves have stated since 2002 that ERISA is the governing body of 

law. 

 On consideration of the parties’ arguments, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion as to the 

identification of CHW representatives. Plaintiff’s position is that this information is relevant to 

determine how and why MetLife sold an ERISA-based plan to CHW in January 2007, months 

before CHW’s formal October 2007 election. MetLife, however, has already responded that it 

sold an ERISA-based policy to CHW because the Plan itself has stated since 2002 – more than 

two years before MetLife first issued an insurance policy to CHW – that it is governed by ERISA. 

Moreover, assuming arguendo that the precise information plaintiff seeks is the identity of the 

CHW representative(s) who represented to MetLife prior to issuance of the 2007 LTD policy that 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 6 of 9
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 

7

the Plan was subject to ERISA, the court finds that the interrogatory as worded is overbroad both 

in time and scope in that it seeks the identities of all CHW representatives who asserted that the 

Plan is subject to ERISA “at any time over the past 10 years.” 

 Furthermore, based on the parties’ joint discovery statement, it appears that they also read 

Interrogatory No. 6 as seeking the identification of CHW representative(s) who completed the 

insurance application, which is unsigned. See Joint Disc. Statement 14:4-9; Glass Decl. Ex. D, 

ECF No. 35 at 26-85. At the hearing on plaintiff’s motion, counsel for MetLife represented that a 

signed application has not been located. Accordingly, MetLife shall be directed to search its 

records again and, if after a thorough search a signed application has still not been located, then a 

MetLife representative shall state so in a verified response. 

c. Identification of MetLife Representative(s) 

 Interrogatory No. 8 asks MetLife for the identification of the person(s) who or entity that 

first sold Group Policy No. 114178-1-G to CHW. The parties repeat their arguments, as set forth 

supra. Because the court finds that the identification of the person(s) who or entity that first sold 

the Group Policy to CHW could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and because 

defendant has failed to show how locating this information is unreasonably burdensome or 

oppressive, defendant will be directed to identify this individual(s) or entity. 

B. Requests for Production 

1. The Requests 

Request No. 3: Please produce any and all applications for long 

term disability insurance presented to MetLife Insurance Company 

by Catholic Healthcare West from 2006 through and including the 

present. 

Request No. 4: Please produce any and all materials of any kind, 

including but not limited to, documents, communications, e-mails 

and/or applications submitted by any person or entity, which were 

relied upon by MetLife, to underwrite and/or issue Group policy 

No. 114178-1-G to Catholic Healthcare West at any time from 1993 

to the present. 

Request No. 6: Please produce any and all documents in your 

possession, custody and/or control which refer or relate to 

information known to MetLife when it sold Group Policy No. 

114178-1-G to Catholic Healthcare West, that the Catholic 

Healthcare West Health and Benefit Plan was a “church plan” as 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 7 of 9
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 

8

that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. sec. 1002(33). 

Request No. 7: Please produce any and all documents in your 

possession, custody and/or control which refer or relate to the 

underwriting and sale of MetLife Group Policy No. 114178-1-G to 

Catholic Healthcare West. 

2. Analysis 

 Plaintiff claims the documents she seeks are relevant to the issues previously identified 

and that the requests are narrowly-tailored. Plaintiff accuses MetLife of failing to provide 

documentation on the LTD plan, but instead providing documentation regarding plaintiff’s Life 

Insurance and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance Policy. Plaintiff also asserts that 

defendant has refused to produce the remaining requested documents. 

 In opposition, defendant argues that the policy information that it provided to plaintiff is 

CHW’s only application for the MetLife policy. MetLife has explained to plaintiff that (1) no 

signed copy of the application has been located, and (2) the LTD insurance was added to the 

existing policy effective as of January 2007, through an amendment to the policy – there was no 

application specifically for insurance for the LTD coverage. The policy that was produced to 

plaintiff was the one she requested by policy number – she received the application for that policy 

number and also the amendment adding the LTD coverage to that policy. Defendant claims it has 

now provided plaintiff with the MetLife policy, the application for it, the amendment adding LTD 

coverage as of 2007, the schedule of exhibits, and the insurance certificate applicable to her 

employee group. Defendant also provided plaintiff with the Plan documents dating back to 2002. 

But as to that part of the request that seeks underwriting documents related to this policy, MetLife 

objects that such materials are confidential financial records. 

 On review, the court finds MetLife’s response to Request No. 3 to be adequate. 

Additionally, the court finds Request Nos. 4 and 7 to be overbroad both in time and scope. But as 

to Request No. 6, insofar as plaintiff is seeking information that goes to what MetLife knew about 

the Plan’s status as a “church plan” before issuing an ERISA-based policy, the court finds this 

information to be relevant and this request to be narrowly-tailored. Therefore, defendant will be 

directed to provide a supplemental response to this request within fourteen days from the date of 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 8 of 9
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 

9

this order. 

C. Depositions 

 Although there are no presently scheduled depositions, plaintiff expresses her desire to 

schedule the depositions of MetLife representatives, but claims she cannot do so because MetLife 

is withholding information from her. While plaintiff did once serve a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 

notice on MetLife, that notice was quashed for failure to give reasonable notice. See Order 

Denying Mot. Compel April 5, 2013, ECF No. 33 at 4-5. Plaintiff now seeks an order directing 

defendant to provide a list of each person who had a substantial role in handling plaintiff’s claims. 

 Defendant argues that this matter is prematurely before the court since plaintiff has not 

served any proper deposition notices. As to plaintiff’s argument that MetLife is stonewalling, 

MetLife asserts that plaintiff has the claim record, and can therefore identify individuals to 

depose, including those who handled and ultimately denied her claim. Defendant’s point is welltaken. 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 30, 2013 motion to compel 

(ECF No. 34) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth more fully above. Defendant shall 

comply with this order to the extent further action is required within fourteen (14) days from the 

date of this order. 

DATED: July 18, 2013 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

/mb;robi1373.mtc2 

Case 2:12-cv-01373-JAM-AC Document 41 Filed 07/18/13 Page 9 of 9