Opinion ID: 3198415
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions for Additional Discovery

Text: Mr. Speer filed a motion for additional or further discovery, two motions to compel discovery, and a motion to defer ruling on summary judgment pending further discovery. All of these motions sought to expand the scope of discovery outside of the materials contained in the administrative record. Prudential argued in response to the requests for discovery that much of the information Mr. Speer sought was already provided in the administrative record and that his discovery requests were generally cumulative, overly broad and vague and ambiguous. The district court denied all of the motions for additional discovery, concluding that Mr. Speer had failed to show the propriety of extra-record discovery. On appeal, Mr. Speer argues that the district court erred in denying his requests for additional discovery, but he has not adequately explained why he should have been permitted discovery outside of the administrative record. “[I]n reviewing a plan administrator’s decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the federal courts are limited to the administrative record—the materials complied by the 5 administrator in the course of making his decision.” Weber, 541 F.3d at 1011. We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions denying Mr. Speer’s requests for additional discovery outside of the administrative record.