1

 In its response, defendant states, inter alia, that: (1) it did not rely on the opinions of two medical consultants

in reaching its decision; (2) it does not have a claims manual; and (3) there are no additional documents that should have

been included in the administrative record. (See Def. Resp. at 10, 13, 15-16).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TONI DRAMSE §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-0524-M

§ 

DELTA FAMILY-CARE DISABILITY §

AND SURVIVORSHIP PLAN §

§

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff Toni Dramse has filed a motion to compel discovery in this case brought under the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. [Doc.

#27]. At issue are interrogatories and document requests pertaining to: (1) a potential conflict of

interest based on the use of biased physician consultants; (2) defendant's claim handling procedures;

and (3) the treatment of similarly situated claimants. Plaintiff also seeks a complete copy of the

administrative record. After this motion was filed, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

In light of defendant's response to the motion to compel,1

 plaintiff advises that the only discovery

she needs to respond to the summary judgment motion is that related to the treatment of similarly

situated claimants. [See Doc. #44]. The court therefore limits its ruling to that issue.

In two interrogatories and one request for production, plaintiff seeks information and

documents showing that defendant has complied with the following requirements of 29 C.F.R.

§ 2560.503-1:

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00524-M Document 45 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 636
2

 The court notes that counsel for plaintiff in the instant case also represented the plaintiffs in Pylant and

Griffin.

(b)(5) The claims procedures contain administrative processes and

safeguards designed to ensure and to verify that benefit claim

determinations are made in accordance with governing plan

documents and that, where appropriate, the plan provisions have been

applied consistently with respect to similarly situated claimants.

* * * *

(h)(2)(iv) Provide for a review that takes into account all comments,

documents, records, and other information submitted by the Claimant

relating to the claim, without regard to whether such information was

submitted or considered in the initial benefit determination.

(Interrog. Nos. 8 & 9; RFP No. 10). Defendant counters that these discovery requests go beyond the

scope of permissible discovery in an ERISA action seeking judicial review of the denial of benefits,

which is restricted to consideration of the administrative record. See Vega v. National Life Insurance

Services, Inc., 188 F.3d 287, 299 (5th Cir. 1999) (en banc). The court agrees. In Pylant v. Hartford

Life and Accident Ins. Co., No. 3-05-CV-0379-G (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2006), this magistrate judge

held that identical discovery requests did not "fall within one of the limited areas that the court is

permitted to consider besides the record." Pylant, No. 3-05-CV-0379-G, op. at 7 (Kaplan, J.), obj.

filed (Jan. 27, 2006), quoting Griffin v. Raytheon Company Long Term Disability Plan No. 558, No.

3-04-CV-2179-D, op. at 7 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2005).2

 Although a court may go outside the record

to consider evidence of "how an administrator has interpreted terms of the plan in other instances .

. ., [and] evidence, including expert opinion, that assists the district court in understanding the

medical terminology or practice related to a claim," id., quoting Vega, 188 F.3d at 299, plaintiff does

not seek discovery for those limited purposes. Rather, it appears that plaintiff wants information and

documents which may show that defendant failed to adhere to the requirements of federal law. Such

discovery is not permitted in an ERISA action. Id.; see also MacDonell v. Prudential Insurance Co.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00524-M Document 45 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 637
of America, No. 3-05-CV-1264-G, op. at 2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2005) (Kaplan, J.); Griffin, No. 3-04-

CV-2179-D, op. at 7.

For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel answers to Interrogatory Nos. 8 & 9 and

Request for Production No. 10 is denied. The motion is denied without prejudice with respect to

Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and Request for Production Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17

& 18. Plaintiff may reurge her motion to compel as to those interrogatories and document requests,

if necessary, after the court rules on the pending motions for summary judgment.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2006.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00524-M Document 45 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 638