Opinion ID: 202743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leave to Amend and Discovery

Text: 15 In his motion for leave to amend, Morales sought to add allegations that procedural irregularities occurred during the claims process and to add a bad faith claim against the insurer. Morales's request for discovery was included in his opposition to MCS's previously-granted motion to have the case removed from the standard track. The district court denied the motion for leave to amend and the request for discovery without a written opinion. On appeal, Morales argues that decision was an abuse of discretion because MCS had an inherent conflict of interest or bias toward denying benefits based on its dual role as insurer and Plan administrator. 16 A district court's decision to deny leave to amend the complaint is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Universal Commc'n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, 478 F.3d 413, 418 (1st Cir. 2007). Under that deferential standard, we uphold the district court's decision `for any reason apparent from the record.' Id. (quoting Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gold, 30 F.3d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1994)). ERISA cases are generally decided on the administrative record without discovery, and some very good reason is needed to overcome the presumption that the record on review is limited to the record before the administrator. Liston v. Unum Corp. Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2003). 17 Morales's conflict of interest theory is premised on a mistaken assumption. As MCS points out, the Plan explains that it is funded by contributions from participating companies, and in this case it is Warner Lambert. The contributions are held in a trust fund for the benefit of Plan participants and beneficiaries. MCS administers claims under the Plan but does not insure the Plan. Successful claims are paid from the trust fund and not by MCS. Therefore, Morales's inherent conflict of interest theory is not supported by the record, and he showed no other reason to support his request for discovery. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for leave to amend and his request for discovery.