Affonso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
94
ORDER on 83 MOTION for Clarification of Order re 78 Order, or in the Alternative, for Limited Discovery filed by Gary E. Affonso, 86 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration re Standard of Review filed by Gary E. Affonso. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/8/2011. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2011)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
GARY E. AFFONSO,
8
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
No. C 10-05054 PJH
12
13
Defendants.
_______________________________/
Now before the court are (1) plaintiff’s administrative motion for clarification of the
14
court’s July 6, 2011 order, or in the alternative, for limited discovery and (2) plaintiff’s
15
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the July 6, 2011 order to the extent
16
that the order finds the standard of review is for abuse of discretion. Defendants oppose
17
the motion for clarification on the ground that the motion is procedurally improper because
18
it seeks substantive, rather than administrative, relief.
19
1.
The court previously ordered defendants to provide (1) a declaration that
20
describes the “certain other” Plan documents identified in the SPD, not limited to the life
21
insurance plan; (2) a copy of all Plan documents, including any corrected versions of the
22
SPD; and (3) the insurance contract for the life insurance plan, including the supplemental
23
life insurance plan. Doc. no. 78 at 3. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification asks the court to
24
order defendant Morgan Stanley to produce the following sets of documents and
25
accompanying declaration: (1) the document(s) which created the“Morgan Stanley Life
26
Insurance Plan,” Plan number 501; (2) the document(s) which created the “Basic and
27
Supplemental Life Insurance Plan: 501;" and (3) each document which is a part of, or
28
states that it is, either of those Plans, or which established or authorized the establishment
1
of each of those plans. Doc. no. 83 at 5. In the alternative, plaintiff asks the court to
2
modify the July 6, 2011 order to the extent that it precludes plaintiff from undertaking
3
discovery by granting leave to take the deposition of the Plan Administrators of the life
4
insurance plan.
5
The court agrees that the relief sought by plaintiff is not properly requested in a
6
motion for administrative relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11. Nonetheless, in the
7
interests of judicial economy and efficiency and because plaintiff was not permitted to file a
8
motion to compel discovery, the court entertains the motion for clarification.
9
Plaintiff contends that defendant Morgan Stanley produced an additional declaration
from Ms. Braun and a CD containing electronic copies of documents, but that Morgan
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Stanley has failed to produce all the documents required by the July 6, 2011 order.
12
Specifically, plaintiff contends that Morgan Stanley has failed to identify and produce
13
documents which create or constitute the “Morgan Stanley Life Insurance Plan” and the
14
“Basic and Supplemental Life Insurance Plan: 501," to which the SPD refers. Doc. no. 84-3
15
at 3 (Morgan Stanley 000562) and 4 (Morgan Stanley 000688). Any such documents, if
16
they exist, fall within the scope of the court’s July 6, 2011 order which requires defendants
17
to provide a declaration that describes the “certain other” Plan documents identified in the
18
SPD, not limited to the life insurance plan. The Braun Declaration provided in response to
19
the July 6, 2011 order fails to address the existence of “certain other documents” that
20
“make up the official Plan documents” for the life insurance plan. See doc. no. 84-2; doc.
21
no. 39, Ex. 1 at 000045.
22
In light of the omission of the Braun declaration, the court hereby ORDERS
23
defendant Morgan Stanley to produce a supplemental declaration which addresses the
24
existence of documents, if any, referred to in the SPD that constitute or “make up” the
25
Morgan Stanley Life Insurance Plan or the Basic and Supplemental Life Insurance Plan:
26
501, as previously ordered. If no such documents exist, a declaration provided by Morgan
27
Stanley under penalty of perjury must so state. Defendant must file its supplemental
28
declaration by September 19, 2011.
2
1
To the extent that plaintiff seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that
2
portion of the order denying his request for Morgan Stanley corporate documents that
3
authorized the establishment of the plans or for additional discovery, such leave is denied.
4
2.
Plaintiff also seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that portion of
5
the July 6, 2011 order finding that the abuse of discretion standard of review applies, based
6
on newly produced documents, namely, the insurance contract and a new Summary Plan
7
Description. Doc. no. 86 at 2. Denials of ERISA benefits are reviewed de novo “unless the
8
benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine
9
eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Firestone Tire & Rubber v.
Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). In Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
964 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit held that "for a Plan to alter the standard of
12
review from the default of de novo to the more lenient abuse of discretion, the Plan must
13
unambiguously provide discretion to the administrator." At the time the court entered the
14
July 6, 2011 order granting defendants’ motion for abuse of discretion review, the parties
15
did not dispute that the language contained in the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”) is
16
sufficient to confer discretion on the Plan Administrator, but plaintiff disputed whether the
17
SPD constitutes the formal Plan document. The court determined that the SPD constitutes
18
the formal plan document for the supplemental life insurance Plan at issue in this case and
19
determined, under Abatie, 458 F.3d at 963, that the language of the SPD constitutes a
20
clear grant of discretionary authority to the Plan administrator and Plan fiduciaries.
21
Plaintiff now contends that the newly produced insurance contract does not delegate
22
discretion to Metlife, and that the SPD by itself is not sufficient to delegate discretion to the
23
plan administrator. Doc. no. 86 at 3 (citing Grosz-Salomon v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.,
24
237 F.3d 1154, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 2001)). In Grosz-Salomon, the Ninth Circuit determined
25
that the applicable benefit plan had not been amended in conformance with the policy
26
provisions, and held that the discretionary language added to the SPD was “null and void.”
27
Because the insurance contract at issue here was not presented to the court on
28
defendants’ motion for abuse of discretion review, defendants have not demonstrated that
3
1
the discretionary language stated in the SPD amended the policy according to the
2
provisions for policy changes or waivers. See Doc. no. 87-1 at 8 (MET 08). Thus, plaintiff
3
has demonstrated a material difference in fact because the insurance contract that
4
defendants have recently produced was not presented to the court before entry of the July
5
6, 2011 order and under Grosz-Salomon, defendants need to show that the policy, which is
6
silent on the discretion, if any, of the plan administrator, was amended to grant such
7
discretion.
8
9
Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the July 6, 2011 order establishing abuse of discretion as the standard of
review. Plaintiff must file a motion for reconsideration, supported by a memorandum of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
points and authorities not to exceed ten pages, by September 15, 2011. Defendants must
12
file an opposition, not to exceed ten pages, addressing the arguments raised in plaintiff’s
13
motion by September 22, 2011. No reply brief will be permitted and the motion for
14
reconsideration will be deemed submitted upon the filing of defendants’ opposition.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: September 8, 2011
17
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?