Wit et al v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company et al

Filing 527

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO TERMS OF APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER. Signed by Judge Judge Joseph C. Spero on January 27, 2021. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2021)

Case 3:14-cv-02346-JCS Document 527 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

DAVID WIT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6

Case No. 14-cv-02346-JCS
Related Case No. 14-cv-05337 JCS

v.
7
8

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant.

9

ORDER OVERRULING
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO
TERMS OF APPOINTMENT OF
SPECIAL MASTER
Dkt. No. 525

10

GARY ALEXANDER, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13
14
15

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant.

16
17

In its November 3, 2020 Remedies Order, the Court resolved to “appoint, at UBH’s

18

expense, a Special Master to serve as an independent monitor to oversee and verify UBH’s

19

compliance with the Remedies Order, including UBH’s faithful implementation of the training

20

program, disclosures and reprocessing procedures ordered [t]herein.” Dkt. No. 491. Pursuant to

21

Rule 53(b)(1), the Court invited the parties to propose candidates for appointment as special

22

master and the Court then gave notice of its intent to appoint one of the proposed candidates, Mr.

23

Douglas Young. Dkt. No. 516. Mr. Young supplied an affidavit stating that he is aware of no

24

grounds for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455, which was filed with the Court’s Order. Id.

25

The parties were given an opportunity to object to Mr. Young’s appointment but no objections

26

were raised. The Court then gave the parties notice of the content of its proposed Rule 53

27

appointment Order (“Court’s Proposed Appointment Order”) and gave the parties until January

28

22, 2021 to object to its terms. Dkt. No. 522. Plaintiffs have filed a notice that they have no

Case 3:14-cv-02346-JCS Document 527 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 2

1

objections to the terms of the Court’s Proposed Appointment Order. Dkt. No. 524. UBH has filed

2

two objections, Dkt. No. 525, which the Court overrules.

3

First, UBH objects on the basis that “the terms of the Order usurp UBH’s discretionary

4

authority as Plan Administrator to apply the plan terms under ERISA or the applicable plans.”

5

This objection relates to certain language UBH requested in the parties’ proposed appointment

6

order referring to the discretion of the plan administrator and which the Court did not include in its

7

proposed appointment order. See Dkt. No. 497 (Parties’ Joint Submission Regarding Appointment

8

of Special Master), Ex. 8 (redline version comparing parties’ proposed appointment orders). The

9

language UBH would have the Court include does not relate to the specific duties of the Special
Master but instead, to the degree of deference to which UBH is entitled with respect to the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reprocessing remedy. In its Remedies Order, the Court addressed this issue in detail when it set

12

forth the parameters of the reprocessing remedy. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 491 at 54-55. Moreover, the

13

Special Master and the parties are familiar with the Court’s rulings, including those related to the

14

degree of discretion to which the plan administrator is (or is not) entitled on reprocessing. The

15

vague references to the plan administrator’s discretion that UBH proposes be included in the

16

appointment order do nothing to clarify the Court’s conclusions and will more likely cause

17

confusion. Therefore, the objection is overruled.

18

Second, UBH “re-states and preserves its general opposition and objection to the

19

reprocessing remedy and the appointment of a Special Master.” Dkt. No. 525. The Court

20

addressed UBH’s opposition to the reprocessing remedy and the appointment of a Special Master

21

in its Remedies Order. For the reasons stated therein, UBH’s objection is overruled.

22
23
24

Accordingly, the Court will appoint Mr. Douglas Young as Special Master in this case, as
set forth in the Court’s separately filed Order Appointing Special Master.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: January 27, 2021
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
2