Mahan v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

Filing 94

ORDER by Judge 9/19/2014 denying 64 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 66 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 73 Motion to Strike; denying Motion for Judicial Notice. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NANCY MAHAN,

Case No. 13-cv-04803-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
11

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE;
DENYING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Docket Nos. 64, 66, 73, 81
12
13
14

Because the record reveals a risk that UNUM's conflict of interest adversely affected its

15

treatment of Mahan's claim, which would impact the degree of scrutiny applied and could

16

potentially affect the outcome, Mahan is permitted to conduct limited discovery on that issue.

17

This discovery cutoff is December 18, 2014. The cross-motions for summary judgment are denied

18

without prejudice to refiling after conflict discovery has concluded. The motion to strike and the

19

motion for judicial notice are denied as moot.

20

By September 25, 2014, the parties shall file a stipulation that: (i) either requests

21

assignment to a specific magistrate judge for a settlement conference or requests that the case be

22

assigned randomly to a magistrate for that purpose; and (ii) sets forth a briefing schedule for cross-

23

motions for summary judgment following the completion of conflict discovery. In their summary

24

judgment papers, the parties should discuss the propriety of UNUM's suggestion, made at the

25

hearing, that the question whether Mahan's claim for "buy up" coverage based on the ankle injury

26

should be remanded to UNUM, and if so, whether this Court should retain jurisdiction over the

27

case while it is on remand. If the parties determine that the conflict discovery cutoff should be

28

extended in light of the date on which their settlement conference with a magistrate judge is

1
2
3
4
5

scheduled, they may submit to this Court a stipulated request for an extension.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2