Yip et al v. Board of Trustees of the San Diego Unitehere Pension Fund et al
Filing
93
ORDER on 90 Joint Motion; Allowing Discovery to Commence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 5/18/2011. (jer)(jrd)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
CHARLES YIP; SILVIA QUINTERO;
AGUSTIN SOTO; ANA IBARRA;
GILBERTO GALLARDO; JOSE; SANCHEZ;
MARCO IBARRA; NANCY BROWNING;
RICARDO QUINTERO; VALENTE
GODINA; and the class they seek to represent,
14
15
16
17
18
Civil No.
08cv1453-MMA (BGS)
Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION;
ALLOWING DISCOVERY TO
COMMENCE
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAN
DIEGO UNITEHERE PENSION FUND;
ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS; JEFF
EACHTEL; and DOES 1 to 50,
[Doc. No. 90.]
Defendants.
19
20
Following the Case Management Conference the Court entertained further briefing
21
from the parties regarding their respective positions on the permissible scope of discovery outside
22
of the Administrative Record. Although the parties agree that an abuse of discretion standard
23
should apply in this case, they do not agree on whether any extra-record discovery or evidence
24
will be permitted. Because Plaintiffs allege that the plan administrators failed to adhere to the
25
procedural dictates of ERISA as well as the plan, Plaintiffs are essentially alleging that the
26
administrators failed to exercise discretion. In such situations, the court may determine that
27
evidence beyond that contained in the administrative record is necessary to determine whether
28
"procedural irregularities are so substantial as to alter the standard of review." See Abatie v. Alta
1
08cv1453-MMA
1
Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 971 (9th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, if the district court
2
ultimately determines that procedural irregularities affected the administrative review, the court
3
may decide to take additional evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must be permitted to propound
4
narrowly tailored discovery so that the court can ultimately decide what, if any, additional
5
evidence will be considered. However, "such discovery must be narrowly tailored and cannot be a
6
fishing expedition." Groom v. Standard Ins. Co., 492 F. Supp.2d 1202, 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
7
Defendants will be allowed to object to the requests at the appropriate time.
8
9
DATED: December 3, 2010
10
11
12
Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
08cv1453-MMA
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?