Opinion ID: 197450
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Methods of Deciding Generally

Text: 91 We turn next to considering how a trial judge may go about performing the function of deciding disputes about the record.(a) Non-jury Trial 92 Precedents support a district court's holding a non-jury trial for distinctive and limited purposes associated with judicial review. An example is an opinion of Justice (then Judge) Breyer for the First Circuit in the context of judicial review of a decision of a governmental agency. E.g., Valley Citizens for a Safe Environment v. Aldridge, 886 F.2d 458, 460 (1st Cir.1989) (Breyer, J.) (It could happen that a particular instance of judicial review of an EIS raises a 'genuine' and 'material' dispute of facts that requires a trial: Did the agency know, for example, about some important matter that the EIS ignored? ... However desirable this kind of evidentiary supplementation as an aid to understanding highly technical, environmental matters, its use is discretionary with the reviewing court.) (citations omitted). The practice seems equally applicable to judicial review of out-of-court decisions of private actors, such as the Committees whose decisions are under judicial review in this case. 93 Even when a district court proceeds with a non-jury trial of this kind, or a proceeding to take evidence on motion, and determines that it is necessary to make some finding with respect to some historical fact (or to draw some reasoned inference from evidence) as to which a genuine dispute exists, ordinarily that factual finding made by the trial judge concerns matters bearing on fairness of the process by which the out-of-court decision was made and not the merits of the claim. A determination by a court that it has jurisdiction to perform this distinctive function does not imply that it must also have jurisdiction to find facts relevant to the merits. 94 (b) Evidence on Motion 95 Also, with respect to preparing for ruling on a pending motion, a trial judge has, under Federal Rules, explicit authority to convene a kind of evidentiary proceeding that differs from taking evidence at trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a). 96 Evidence on Motions. When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or deposition. 97 Fed.R.Civ.P. 43(d). This procedural authority, however, regarding the manner of taking evidence, does not expand the trial court's jurisdiction. Rules of procedure apply to how the court may go about performing whatever function and role it is assigned by constitutional, statutory, and decisional law governing the court's jurisdiction. 98 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not purport to expand the court's jurisdiction from a role of judicial review to a role of plenary adjudication. This is a proposition inherent in the general aim that a court system's procedural rules be focused on fair and efficient procedures rather than either jurisdictional or substantive law. And it is a proposition inherent in the claim-based rather than case-based theme of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, explained in Part II.B above. 99 (c) An Issue on Which Decision is Reserved 100 We have not decided, and need not decide today, whether a court, when reviewing a benefits determination, must restrict itself to the record as considered by the decisionmaker who interpreted the employee benefits plan. See Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Ben. Plan, 46 F.3d 938 (9th Cir.1995); Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 987 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir.1993); Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, and Pension Trust Funds, 944 F.2d 1176 (3d Cir.1991); compare Davidson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 953 F.2d 1093, 1095 (8th Cir.1992). 101 Rather, we simply emphasize for clarity that making factual findings about what is or is not properly a part of the record for judicial review is fundamentally different from asserting plenary authority to decide the merits of a benefits claim. 102 As stated above, a trial court may take evidence on motion or convene a nonjury trial in order to develop a record suitable for judicial review of a challenged out-of-court decision. Also, a court may convene either of these kinds of proceedings to determine whether the record on which the out-of-court decision was made is complete and, if not, what supplementation is appropriate. That the trial court has some range of discretion in this respect is reinforced by analogy to precedent. For example, a Fourth Circuit decision, calling attention to limitations on the district court's discretion, also declares that the court has some range of discretion to take evidence. 103 [W]e continue to believe that the purposes of ERISA described in our Berry opinion warrant significant restraints on the district court's ability to allow evidence beyond what was presented to the administrator. In our view, the most desirable approach to the proper scope of de novo review under ERISA is one which balances these multiple purposes of ERISA. Consequently, we adopt a scope of review that permits the district court in its discretion to allow evidence that was not before the plan administrator. The district court should exercise its discretion, however, only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit decision. 104 Quesinberry, 987 F.2d at 1025. 105