Coleman v. Unum Group Corporation

Filing 99

ORDER granting 83 Motion to Compel plaintiff to authorize release of Social Security Records; granting in part and denying in part 86 Motion to Determine sufficiency and/or Compel; granting 87 Motion for Leave to File discovery motion out of time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 8/15/2016. (srr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PAUL MICHAEL COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNUM GROUP CORP. and
PAUL REVERE LIFE INS. CO.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:15-00367-WS-N

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the following:

Plaintiff’s Motion to

Determine Sufficiency and/or Further Compel Under Rule 37 (doc. 86); Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Discovery Motion Out of Time (doc. 87); Defendant’s Motion
to Compel Authorization of Release of Social Security Records (doc. 83); responses
thereto (Docs. 85, 96) and attached documents.1 Oral argument was held before the
undersigned Magistrate Judge on August 12, 2016. Present were Forrest S. Latta,
Esq., counsel for Plaintiff, and James S. Williams, Esq., counsel for Defendants.
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency and/or Further Compel
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 87) this discovery motion out of date
is GRANTED. Upon consideration, and for reasons more fully stated on the record
at the motion hearing (see doc. 97), it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Under S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b), this discovery motion has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for disposition in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a),
and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(1) & (a)(2)(S).

1

1

Determine Sufficiency and/or Further Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part, as follows:
1.

The Motion Compel is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 4 of
the Second Request for Production (seeking “[a]ll documents
continuing communications by Jack McGarry to any Unum employee
on the subject of how claims should be handled with Unum’s closed
block book of individual disability insurance.”). Defendant Unum
Corporation asserted that it has “conducted a diligent search and
made reasonable inquiry for documents,” without finding any
documents responsive to the request. Doc. 86 at 4. Plaintiff has made
no showing that this statement is untrue.2

1.

The Motion to Compel is DENIED as to Request for Production No.
14 of the Third Request for Production (seeking “Management
Duration Guidelines for 2012, 2013 and 2014”). Defendant Unum
Corporation has asserted that no such document exists. Doc. 86 at 5;
see also Doc. 97. Again, Plaintiff has made no showing that
Defendant’s statement is untrue.

2.

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in
part, as to Request for Production No. 8 of the Third Request for
Production (seeking “Benefit Center Recognition Programs Summary

2 Plaintiff further maintains that a footnote in an unrelated case out of the Middle District of
Florida which refers to six emails from Jack McGarry is evidence that defendant is not
forthcoming in its responses. For the reasons stated on the record the undersigned disagrees.
2

Brochure for 2012, 2013, 2014.”). Plaintiff’s counsel notes that it has
already produced the brochure which was in effect in the first
quarter of 2013 (see Doc. 86-3 at 11) and asserts that no iteration of
the document was in effect after that date. Doc. 96 at 6. Plaintiff is
ORDERED to produce, on or before

Thursday, August 18, 2016,

the Benefit Center Recognition Programs Summary Brochure which
was in effect in 2012.
3.

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to Requests for Production
Nos. 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 17 of the Third Request for Production
regarding production of responsive 2012 documents. Plaintiff filed
his claim with Defendant Unum Corporation in December 2012. See,
e.g., Doc. 86-2. Thus, 2012 internal documents may be relevant to the
disposition of Plaintiff’s claim with Unum Corporation. Defendant is
ORDERED to produce, on or before Thursday, August 18, 2016,
all 2012 documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3,
7, 10, 11, and 17 of the Third Request for Production.

B.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Authorization of
Release of Social Security Records

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Authorize Release of Social Security
Records (Doc. 83) is GRANTED. Plaintiff at no point objected to the production of
social security records or to the subpoena issued to the Social Security
Administration seeking those records. Doc. 83 at 1-3. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel
3

acknowledges no reason—other than a lack of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
specifically requiring production—why the social security records should not be
produced. Doc. 85 at 1-2. The Plaintiff is ORDERED to authorize, on or before
Thursday, August 18, 2016, the release of all records in the possession of the
Social Security Administration pertaining to Plaintiff’s application for or receipt of
social security benefits.
DONE and ORDERED this the 15th day of August 2016.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4