Moos-Holling v. Bayer Corporation Disability Plan

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISSCOVERY AND FOR A CONTINUANCE (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. BAYER CORPORATION DISABILITY PLAN, Defendant. / ROSALIE A. MOOS-HOLLING, Plaintiff, No. C 07-06240 SI ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA By letter brief, plaintiff filed a motion on October 28, 2008 to compel discovery. [Docket No. 22] Plaintiff requested a 30-day continuance of the October 31 deadline for filing dispositive motions and requested that the Court "compel answers to all of the outstanding discovery which has not been answered." See Pl. Letter Brief, at 4. Plaintiff's motion is not timely. On March 28, 2008, the Court set October 31 as the deadline for dispositive motions. See March 31 Minute Entry. [Docket No. 14] At a case management conference on August 22, the parties were directed to brief discovery issues prior to filing dispositive motions. See August 28 Minute Entry. [Docket No. 21] Plaintiff filed her letter brief, the first discovery dispute in the case, three days before the deadline for dispositive motions. Plaintiff offers no explanation for why she could not file her motion in a timely manner and avoid the need for a continuance. Plaintiff's motion is also not sufficiently specific. Plaintiff's broad request for production on all unanswered discovery requests gives the Court no guidance on what discovery requests have been made, why the documents are relevant, and how defendant's responses have been deficient. Plaintiff does not meet her burden by attaching dozens of pages of discovery requests to her brief but offering no specific discussion of their content. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Finally, plaintiff provides no legal authority supporting her request. Plaintiff claims that the discovery requested in this ERISA action is relevant to prove the existence of a conflict of interest between the plan administrator and the payer of the plan. Plaintiff cites no authority, however, supporting her claim that she is entitled to financial discovery regarding her conflict of interest theory. Cf. Newman v. Standard Ins. Co., 997 F.Supp. 1276, 1281 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ("A primary goal of ERISA was to provide a method for workers and beneficiaries to resolve disputes over benefits inexpensively and expeditiously. Allowing the far-reaching discovery requested by Plaintiff would completely frustrate this purpose.") (citation omitted). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and for a continuance is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 11/26/08 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?