Wong v. Walgreen Income Protection Plan for Store Managers

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 35 Motion re standard of review; granting 33 Motion re discovery (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VANESSA WONG,

8
9
10

Plaintiff(s),
v.
WALGREEN INCOME PROTECTION
PLAN FOR STORE MANAGERS,

No. C 13-1884 PJH
ORDER RE MOTION RE STANDARD
OF REVIEW AND MOTION RE
DISCOVERY

11
12
13

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/
Defendant’s motion re standard of review and plaintiff’s motion re scope of discovery

14

came on for hearing before this court on January 29, 2014. Plaintiff Vanessa Wong

15

(“plaintiff”) appeared through her counsel, Robert Rosati. Defendant Walgreen Income

16

Protection Plan for Store Managers (“defendant”) appeared through its counsel, Brendan

17

Begley. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motions and carefully

18

considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the

19

court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion and GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for the reasons

20

stated at the hearing and as follows.

21

As to the standard of review, there is no dispute that the plan administrator was

22

delegated discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms

23

of the plan, which generally results in an “abuse of discretion” standard of review. See,

24

e.g., Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 110-11 (2008). However, plaintiff

25

claims that the plan administrator “engage[d] in wholesale and flagrant violations of the

26

procedural requirements of ERISA, and thus act[ed] in utter disregard of the underlying

27

purpose of the plan,” which justifies a de novo standard of review. See Abatie v. Alta

28

Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 971 (9th Cir. 2006). While the court does find some

1

procedural irregularities in the consideration of plaintiff’s claim, the court disagrees that they

2

rise to the level of “wholesale and flagrant violations of the procedural requirements of

3

ERISA.” Thus, the court finds that the abuse of discretion standard of review is applicable

4

to plaintiff’s claims, and therefore GRANTS defendant’s motion.

5

However, while the procedural irregularities identified by plaintiff do not justify

6

altering the standard of review, they do justify some limited discovery. Specifically, the

7

court finds that the confusion surrounding the medical report of Dr. Bruce LeForce justifies

8

some discovery into how the confusion occurred. Accordingly, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s

9

motion for discovery, and allows plaintiff to take the depositions of Cynthia Craig, Sonia

10

Brown, Ericka McGrew, and Jasmine Nurse, on the limited topic of the irregularities

11

surrounding Dr. LeForce’s report (and not on any broader issues regarding structural

12

conflicts of interest). Plaintiff shall also be entitled to documents that are directly related to

13

the procedural irregularities surrounding the LeForce report.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 31, 2014
_____________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge