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)

Download PDF
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?