1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CATHERINE A. BLACK,

Plaintiff,

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-02116-X

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

DISCOVERY ORDER

On April 25, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff Catherine Black’s 

Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of 

America (Unum). ECF No. 12. The parties’ discovery dispute arises in the context 

of Black’s lawsuit brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., to recover long-term disability (LTD) 

benefits under a plan administered by Unum. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) governs Black’s motion to compel. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(b) (providing that a party seeking discovery may move for an order 

compelling production against another party when the latter has failed to answer 

interrogatories under Rule 33 or to produce documents requested under Rule 34). 

Rule 26(b)(1) generally provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding 

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case.” However, discovery in an ERISA case is 

more limited. In Crosby v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258, 

Case 3:22-cv-02116-X Document 29 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 389
2 

262 (5th Cir. 2011), the Fifth Circuit held that, in an action brought under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(a)(1)(B), a claimant may obtain discovery relating to (1) the completeness 

of the administrative record; (2) whether the plan administrator complied with 

ERISA’s procedural regulations; and (3) the existence and extent of a conflict of 

interest created by a plan administrator’s dual role in making benefits 

determinations and funding the plan. 647 F.3d at 263. The Fifth Circuit also stated 

that it could envision situations where evidence needed for resolving these disputes 

may not be contained in the administrative record. Id.

Here, counsel for the parties met and conferred and narrowed their dispute 

to Black’s Interrogatory Nos. 1-8 and 10 and Black’s Request for Production Nos. 

10-13. Joint Report 6 (ECF No. 25). After considering the parties arguments and 

the relevant law, the Court makes the following rulings: 

1. the Court GRANTS in part Black’s motion with respect to 

Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 and ORDERS Unum to supplement its 

answers and produce Nurse Abbott’s resume or CV (including any 

coursework or other training or experience regarding thoracic 

outlet syndrome) on or before May 10, 2023. 

2. the Court DENIES Black’s motion with respect to Interrogatory 

Nos. 3-8 and 10. 

3. the Court GRANTS in part Black’s motion with respect to Request 

for Production Nos. 10-13 and ORDERS Unum to supplement its 

response and produce the one-page instruction sheet discussed at 

Case 3:22-cv-02116-X Document 29 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 390
3 

the hearing. Also—as discussed at the hearing—the parties will 

negotiate and submit a proposed agreed Protective Order for the 

Court’s signature by May 10, 2023. Unum will produce the onepage instruction sheet three days after the Court enters the

protective order. 

SO ORDERED. 

April 26, 2023. 

 ____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02116-X Document 29 Filed 04/26/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 391