T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OS AL I E A. MOOS - HO L L I NG , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. BAYER C ORPORATI ON DI SABI LI TY P L AN , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15366 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 6 2 4 0 - SI ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S us a n I l l s t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 10, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T R O T T an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R osal i e M oo s- H ol l i ng appeal s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j udgm e ntt o B a y e rC orpor a t i on D i s abi l i ty P l a n ( “ B C D P ” ) f ol l ow i ng the t erm i nat i on of her l on g-t erm di sabi l i ty ( “ L T D ”) benefi t s. F ol l ow i ng an i nj ury a t h o m e, M o o s-H o l l i n g w as aw ard ed L T D b en efi t s effecti v e M arch 1 , 2 0 0 3 . T h o se 

# FI LED FEB 18 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

benefi t s t erm i nat ed N ov em ber 30, 20 05 for f ai l ure t o p rovi de m edi ca l doc um e nt a t i on r e l a t i ng t o he rc ont i nui ng di s abi l i ty . T he di s tr i c tc ourtuphe l d the t e rmi n a t i o n o f

b e n e f i t s , a n d w e a f

f i rm. T he gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nta nd the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s “ c hoi c e a nd appl i ca t i on of the st andard of revi ew t o d ec i si on s by E R IS A fi du ci ar i es ” are r e vi e w e d de novo. N ol a n v. H e a l d C ol l . , 551 F . 3d 1148, 1153 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . A de ni a l of be ne f i t s i s r e vi e w e d de novo “ unl e s s the b e n e f it p la n g iv e s th e a d m in is tr a to ro rf id u c iary d is c r e tio n a ry au th o r ity to de t e rm i ne e l i gi bi l i ty f

orbe ne f i t s ort o c ons true the t e rm s of the pl a n. ” F i r e s t one T i r e & R ubbe rC o. v. B ruc h, 489 U . S . 101, 115 ( 1989) . S uc h agr a ntof di s c r e t i on w as pres enti n thi s c as e. T here fore , the deci si on t erm i nat i ng benefi t s i s r evi ew ed for an abu se of di sc re t i on . T he structural confl i ctof i nt er es tcr ea t ed by B ay er C o rp o r a tio n b o th f

u n d in g th e T ru s t to p a y b e n e f its a n d m a k in g th e d e c is io n to a w a r d orw i thhol d be ne f i t s i s af a c t ort o be c ons i de r e d i n the abus e of di s c r e t i on r e vi e w . M e tr o. L i f

e I ns . C o. v. G l e nn, 128 S . C t . 2343, 2348- 51 ( 2008) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y r e vi e w e d the t e rm i na t i on of be ne f i t s f ora n abus e of di sc re t i on , appl yi ng a hea vy do se of skept i ci sm . S ee A bat i e v. A l t a H ea l th & L i fe Ins. C o. , 45 8 F . 3d 95 5, 96 8 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( en banc).3

T he di s tr i c tc ourtw a s notr e qui r e d t o c onduc tabe nc h tr i a l on the c onf l i c tof i nt er es tcr ea t ed by the T rust , because the courtconsi dere d al l adm i ss i bl e e vi dence s u b m itte d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e n o n - m o v in g p a rty , M o o s - H o llin g . N ol an, 55 1 F . 3d at11 55 . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y r ef used t o con si der the sw orn d e p o s itio n s o f

f e r e d b y M o o s - H o llin g b e c au s e th e y d id n o t s a tis f y th e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rju d ic ia l n o tic e u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 2 0 1 , a n d b e c au s e s h e “f a il[ e d ] to es t abl i sh any groun d for the adm i ss i bi l i ty of these do cum ent s. ” S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. A l on so, 48 F . 3d 15 36 , 15 44 (9th C i r. 19 95 ); F ed. R . A pp . P . 28 (a )) . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g M o o s- H o ll in g ’s r e que s tf orac ont i nua nc e pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 56( f

) . S he f a i l e d t o i de nt i f

y s pe c i f i c f a c t s tha tw oul d be r e ve a l e d thr ough f urthe rdi s c ove ry , or to e x p la in h o w th e in f

o rm a tio n s h e s o u g h t w o u ld p r e c lu d e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. D e s pi t e s e ve r a l r e que s t s f ordoc um e nt a t i on, M oos - H ol l i ng s ubm i tt e d no reco rd s sh o w i n g treatm en tb y a m ed i cal p ro v i d er aft er A u g u sto f 2 0 0 4 . T h e l ast r e p o rt f r o m ad o c to re x p r e s s in g a n o p in io n a s to h e rd is ab ility w a s d a te d in D e c e m be r , 2003. T he r e f or e , i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e i n the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e c or d, B C D P di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by t erm i nat i ng her L T D benefi t s, and the di stri ct c o u rt d id n o t e rrb y g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A FFI R M ED