Glaze v. Life Insurance Company of North America et al

Filing 48

ORDER DENYING as moot the plf's requests for admission; as stated in open court it is ORDERED that the plf's 41 Second MOTION to Strike Defs' Discovery be and is hereby DENIED; further ORDERING that the plf's 40 MOTION to Compel be and is hereby GRANTED in part, as further set out in order; in all other respects a further specified in this order, the 40 motion to compel be and is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/29/17. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT GLAZE,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA and DALE
MEDICAL CENTER GROUP HEALTH
PLAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:16cv799-WKW
(WO)

ORDER
Now pending before the court are the plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. # 40) and
second motion to strike defendants’ discovery objections (doc. # 41) filed on June 14, 2017.
The court held oral argument on these motions on June 28, 2017. During oral argument, the
court summarily denied the plaintiffs’ second motion to strike defendants’ discovery
objections.
In determining what discovery to allow, the court is likewise guided by some other
fundamental principles. “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1). “Rule 26 . . . [(b)(1)] is highly flexible, having been designed to
accommodate all relevant interests as they arise . . . ” U. S. v. Microsoft Corp., 165 F.3d
952, 959-60 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

The plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to respond to requests for production of
documents and interrogatories related to the administrative handling of the plaintiff’s
disability claims and damages. In request for production # 1, the plaintiff requests the
defendants’ claims manuals and procedures. At oral argument, the court concluded that it
would order the defendants to produce all of the policies and procedures that relate to the
adjudication of short term and long term disability claims including the policies related to the
transition from a short term disability claim to a long term disability.
At oral argument, the plaintiff clarified that in request for production # 2 he sought
the name of the nurse involved in the denial of his short term disability claim and the
complete medical file including any reports of that nurse. The defendants agreed to produce
that information.
In request for production # 5, the plaintiff sought “each and every policy ever
purchased by the Plaintiff or his employer.” The defendants informed the court that they had
produced those policies. No further response is necessary. Consequently, the motion to
compel regarding this request will be denied as moot.
In request for production # 8, the plaintiff sought documents related to how the
defendants had previously interpreted the policies at issue. As stated in open court, that
request is due to be denied.
In requests for production # 9 & 11, the plaintiff seeks to require the defendants to
conduct a search of electronic mail. Because the requests are overbroad, the court will deny

2

the motion to compel these requests without prejudice so that the parties may work
cooperatively to narrow the request so that it is consistent with the factors set forth in
FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1).
In request for production # 11, the plaintiff seeks the organizational structure of the
defendants. At oral argument, the plaintiff clarified that he was seeking the names and job
titles of the fourteen employees who worked on his claims file as identified in interrogatory
# 6 as well as the nurse identified in request for production # 2. This aspect of the motion
to compel with that clarification will be granted. At oral argument, the plaintiff withdrew
request for production # 17.
The court next turns to the plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories.
The parties agreed that interrogatory # 1 was resolved by the court’s resolution of request for
production # 1. Consequently, this request will be denied.
In interrogatory # 7, the plaintiff seeks information on the amount of reserves assigned
to his claim. As stated in open court, this request is premature and will be denied without
prejudice.
Finally, the parties agreed that the plaintiff’s requests for admission are due to be
DENIED as moot.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the motions, and as stated in open court, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s second motion to strike defendants’ discovery (doc. #
41) be and is hereby DENIED. It is further

3

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. # 40) be and is hereby
GRANTED in part as follows:
1.

With respect to request for production # 1, the defendants shall produce, within

fourteen days of the date of this order, all of the policies and procedures that relate to the
adjudication of short term and long term disability claims including the policies related to the
transition from a short term disability claim to a long term disability
2.

With respect to request for production # 2, the defendants shall produce, within

fourteen days of the date of this order, the name of the nurse involved in the denial of the
plaintiff’s short term disability claim and the complete medical file including any reports of
that nurse.
3.

With respect to request for production # 11 and interrogatory # 6, the

defendants shall produce, within fourteen days of the date of this order, the names and job
titles of the fourteen employees who worked on his claims file as well as the nurse identified
in request # 2.
4.

In all other respects as further specified in this order, the motion to compel be

and is hereby DENIED.
Done this 29th day of June, 2017.

/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4