Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00227-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ryan G. McAfee
Plaintiff
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Defendant
Peoplesoft Incorporated Long-Term Disability Plan
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RYAN G. MCAFEE,

NO. CIV. S-05-0227 WBS KJM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, and PEOPLESOFT

INCORPORATED LONG-TERM

DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Before the court are plaintiff Ryan McAfee and

defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and PeopleSoft

Incorporated Long-Term Disability Plan’s cross-motions for

summary judgment. On April 3, 2006, defendants filed 16

objections to plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts and

Supporting Evidence. Additionally, defendants filed 3 objections

to exhibits A, B, and C to the declaration of Douglas K. de Vries

(submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion). On April 3, 2006,

plaintiff filed a response to defendants’ Separate Statement of

Case 2:05-cv-00227-WBS -KJM Document 42 Filed 04/11/06 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

Undisputed Facts, to which plaintiff made 2 objections. 

Defendants’ objections are made primarily on the

grounds that the statements at issue constitute hearsay or

inadmissable personal opinions of lay witnesses or conclusions of

law rather than statements of fact, or are lacking foundation,

argumentative, misstatements or mischaracterizations of the

documents to which they refer, privileged, and/or irrelevant. 

Plaintiff objects to the reference in defendants’ separate

statement of undisputed facts to a January 1, 2005 Certificate of

Insurance, which amended the plan, on the grounds that it is

irrelevant, a misrepresentation, and a mischaracterization.

To rule on the parties’ cross-motions for summary

judgment, the court must first decide these objections. 

Accordingly, at the hearing currently set for April 17, 2006, at

1:30 p.m., the court will hear only the evidentiary objections. 

The hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment will be

rescheduled for a later date after the evidentiary objections

have been resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 11, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00227-WBS -KJM Document 42 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2