Opinion ID: 174959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Resolution of Ms. Murphy's discovery request

Text: As stated previously, we review de novo whether the district court employed the correct legal standard in resolving a discovery request. See Neiberger, 566 F.3d at 1189. And, if it has employed the correct legal standard, we review its exercise of discretion for an abuse of discretion. See Ridenour, 397 F.3d at 938. Here, we do not think the magistrate judge resolved Ms. Murphy's discovery request under the correct legal standard. The magistrate judge began his analysis by acknowledging that [d]iscovery may be permitted in ERISA cases to ascertain whether a conflict of interest exists. (Aplt.App. v.1 at 85.) But after some discussion that discovery may be permitted in some circumstances, the magistrate judge concluded that because MetLife conceded it served as both the administrator and insurer of the Plan, its conflict of interest was now `apparent' [and] further discovery into the conflict [was] not required. ( Id. at 87.) He appears to have read our admittedly unclear case law as prohibiting any discovery related to the seriousness of an inherent dual role conflict of interest or efforts to mitigate any conflict of interest. The magistrate judge's conclusion, however, paints with too broad a brush. Ms. Murphy might be able to argue that discovery, appropriately circumscribed, is appropriate to allow her to determine, and present evidence on, the seriousness of the inherent conflict and the likelihood that it jeopardized MetLife's decisionmaking process in her case. [8] Therefore, we think it is appropriate to vacate the district court's denial of Ms. Murphy's request for discovery so that it may reconsider that request in light this opinion. [9]