Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00249/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00249-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allstate Insurance Long Term Disability Benefits Plan
Defendant
William Baker
Plaintiff
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
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

WILLIAM BAKER, No. 2:05-cv-0249-MCE-KJM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE

LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS

PLAN; and DOES 1 thru 10 inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

In bringing the present Motion for Reconsideration,

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) asks

this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s February 2, 2006

Order compelling responses to certain discovery propounded by

Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife improperly terminated his

disability insurance benefits. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00249-MCE -KJM Document 30 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district 1

court judge to “modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate

judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may

reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the

magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

2

Because MetLife served as both the Plan Administrator of the

ERISA disability plan at issue as well as the funding source of

said plan, the Magistrate Judge determined, under Tremain v.

Bell, 196 F.3d 970, 976-77 (9th Cir. 1999) that evidence outside

the existing administrative record may be considered given the

less deferential standard of review that applies in instances

where that dual status is present. The Magistrate Judge hence

permitted limited discovery, tailored to Plaintiff’s particular

claim and to the individuals and policies involved in denying his

claim, in order to determine whether MetLife’s dual status

tainted its ultimate decision. 

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the

assigned judge shall apply the “clearly erroneous or contrary to

law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 72-303(f), as

specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under this standard, the Court 1

must accept the Magistrate Judge’s decision unless it has a

“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

Concrete Pipe & Products of Calif., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers

Pension Trust for So. Calif., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the

Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge

were at least plausible, after considering the record in its

entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it

would have weighed the evidence differently. 

Case 2:05-cv-00249-MCE -KJM Document 30 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d

1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997).

After reviewing the entire file, this Court cannot say that

the Magistrate Judge’s decision permitting additional discovery

was clearly erroneous as that standard has been defined. As

stated above, the discovery authorized is narrowly drawn and

specifically designed to assess whether MetLife’s apparent

conflict of interest affected its benefits determination. Since

such information would necessarily not be included within the

underlying administrative record, denying any attempt to augment

that record through, for example, additional discovery would

nullify Tremain’s directive that additional evidence may be

considered to assess the impact of an insurer’s dual status. 

MetLife’s request for reconsideration is accordingly DENIED. 

Defendants are directed to comply with the terms of the

Magistrate Judge’s February 2, 2006 Order by Monday, July 10,

2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00249-MCE -KJM Document 30 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 3