Tommy Dowdy et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Filing 18

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF re 17 MOTION for Discovery filed by Tommy Dowdy. Briefing due by 2/19/2016 at 12:00 PM. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 16, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TOMMY DOWDY, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-03764-JST

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER
BRIEF

v.
9
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Re: ECF No. 17

Defendant.

12
13

The Court has received the parties’ joint discovery letter brief. ECF No. 17.

14

Before the Court can decide the questions posed by the parties’ letter, it must determine

15

which standard of review applies to this case, or at least know with clarity which standard each of

16

the parties thinks applies. “It is well established that the scope of discovery in a denial of ERISA

17

benefits case is linked to the standard of review.” Medford v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 244 F. Supp. 2d

18

1120, 1124 (D. Nev. 2003). In general, “discovery must be more carefully tailored to the issues

19

raised in the particular case” than discovery in an ordinary civil case, “specifically, ‘the need to

20

demonstrate conflict of interest,’ as well as the proper standard of review to be applied.” Klund v.

21

High Tech. Sols., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1159-60 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Waggener v.

22

UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1185 (S.D. Cal. 2002)).

23

Although the parties have made various statements about the standard of review they think

24

the Court will apply in this case, the question has not been definitively decided, and the parties’

25

statements are equivocal. In the parties’ recent Joint Case Management Statement, ECF No. 14,

26

Plaintiffs say that the abuse of discretion standard “generally applies in cases where, as here, the

27

plan purports to grant its administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility for

28

benefits,” but that they intend to “take discovery going to the standard of review.” Id. at 5. The

1

Plaintiffs take no position on the question in the more recent letter brief. The Defendants, by

2

comparison, take no position regarding the standard of review in the case management statement,

3

but argue in the letter brief that since they have offered to stipulate to de novo review, that should

4

be the standard.

5

The parties are ordered to file briefs of not more than three pages each identifying the

6

applicable standard of review in this case and the reasons and authorities in support of that

7

standard. The briefs must be filed by Friday, February 19, 2016 at noon. In the alternative, the

8

parties may file a stipulation, which need not be supported by argument or authority. In either

9

event, the Court will decide the parties’ discovery dispute, ECF No. 17, after receipt of the
information requested by this order.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: February 16, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2