IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Craig S. Jones, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No. 2:11-cv-380

Kerry A. Allen, Plan JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON

Administrator, et al., Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER

This ERISA case is before the Court to resolve PNC

Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Protective Order Regarding

Depositions on Conflicts Issues (Doc. 133), Plaintiffs’ Response

and Cross Motion to Compel (Doc. 140), Defendants’ Reply in

support of their motion for a protective order (Doc. 150-1), and

Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of their motion to compel (Doc.

153). 

The factual background for this motion is set forth in the

Court’s previous orders. In brief, this is a case involving

review of an administrative decision denying a claim for ERISA

benefits. While ERISA cases are typically decided based solely

on the administrative record, here the Court has permitted

limited discovery beyond the record. On March 25, 2014, the

Court ruled that Plaintiffs were entitled to conflict of interest

discovery. (Doc. 166 at 4). Shortly thereafter, on March 31,

2014, the Court resolved two motions for protective orders, one

of which involved the depositions of three individuals. (Doc.

168 at 3). The Court denied the motion for a protective order as

to the depositions of three individuals, holding that the

depositions could go forward but should be limited to the scope

authorized by the Court’s orders. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00380-MHW-TPK Doc #: 195 Filed: 09/05/14 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
In the first motion addressed in this Order, PNC Defendants

seek a protective order regarding the deposition of David

Williams, PNC’s Mergers & Acquisitions Manager. Defendants

acknowledge that discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ retaliation

claim is ripe and that Plaintiffs intend to question Mr. Williams

on issues related to Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim. Defendants

argue, however, that it would be more practical to hold Mr.

Williams’ deposition at a time when the Court has provided

clarity about the areas of discovery that Plaintiffs are

permitted to pursue now. Defendants also argue, as they did in

their previous motion for a protective order, that depositions

regarding conflicts issues are inappropriate when relevant

information is attainable through well-crafted written discovery. 

The Court’s March 31, 2014 Order provided some guidance to the

parties as to the scope of conflicts discovery, and also rejected

Defendants’ argument that the parties are constrained to written

discovery for purposes of conflicts issues. The Court has since

provided additional clarification of the scope of conflicts

discovery during the course of other depositions. Accordingly,

the Court does not find good cause to enter a protective order

regarding the deposition of Mr. Williams. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court denies PNC

Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Protective Order Regarding

Depositions on Conflicts Issues (Doc. 133). The deposition of

Mr. Williams shall go forward. However the scope of the

deposition shall be limited to the discovery that the Court has

authorized. In light of the resolution of the motion for a

protective order, Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion to Compel (Doc. 140)

is denied without prejudice. 

Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is

filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00380-MHW-TPK Doc #: 195 Filed: 09/05/14 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Eastern Division Order No. 14–01, pt.

IV(C)(3)(a). The motion must specifically designate the order or

part in question and the basis for any objection. Responses to

objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and

replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. 

The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set

aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.

This order is in full force and effect even if a motion for

reconsideration has been filed unless it is stayed by either the

Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.

/s/ Terence P. Kemp 

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00380-MHW-TPK Doc #: 195 Filed: 09/05/14 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>