Wong v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Filing 40

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 38 Joint MOTION for Discovery Dispute Determination. To the extent that additional discovery is required, Defendant is to produce the requested information to Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 11/25/13. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

VICTORIA WONG,
vs.

CASE NO. 12cv2917-L (MDD)
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
[ECF NO. 38]

Defendant.

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

Before the Court is a joint motion to determine a discovery dispute
filed November 19, 2013. (ECF No. 38). At issue are four (4)
interrogatories and two (2) requests for production of documents
propounded by Plaintiff upon Defendant. In this case, Plaintiff
challenges the denial of long-term disability benefits from Defendant
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). The parties have agreed
that the abuse of discretion standard applies to the Court’s review of
Defendant’s decision denying benefits. (See ECF No. 24).
Background
According to her Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by The Hobart
West Group, Inc., as its Western Regional Facilities Manager.

-1-

12cv2917-L (MDD)

1

Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company issued a Long Term Disability

2

Group Policy to The Hobart West Group, Inc. Plaintiff applied for

3

benefits and her application was finally denied on September 22, 2011.

4

(ECF No. 1).

5

Legal Standard

6

Normally, no discovery is allowed in an action in federal court

7

seeking review of a denial of benefits under an ERISA plan. An

8

exception exists, however, where a plaintiff alleges a “structural conflict

9

of interest.” A structural conflict of interest occurs when an insurer acts

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

as both the plan administrator and the funding source of benefits.
On the one hand, such an administrator is responsible for
administering the plan so that those who deserve benefits
receive them. On the other hand, such an administrator has
an incentive to pay as little in benefits as possible to plan
participants because the less money the insurer pays out, the
more money it retains in its own coffers.
Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 965–66 (9th Cir.
2006). A reviewing court using the abuse of discretion standard must
evaluate the nature, extent, and effect of the conflict in deciding how
skeptically to view the conflicted administrator's decision. Id. at 968–69.
“[W]hen reviewing a discretionary denial of benefits by a plan
administrator who is subject to a conflict of interest, we must determine
the extent to which the conflict influenced the administrator's decision
and discount to that extent the deference we accord the administrator's
decision.” Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522
F.3d 863, 868 (9th Cir. 2008). In evaluating how the conflict affects the
level of judicial scrutiny, a court may consider evidence outside the
administrative record. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 970. Among the factors to be
considered are: evidence of malice, self-dealing, or parsimonious
claims-granting history; the giving of inconsistent reasons for denial of a
claim; failure to adequately investigate a claim; and repeated denials to
-2-

12cv2917-L (MDD)

1

deserving participants by interpreting plan terms incorrectly. Id. at

2

967–68; see also Bardill v. Lincoln National Life Ins., 2011 WL 891141

3

(N.D.Cal. March 15, 2011) (examining evidence of malice or self dealing,

4

consistency of reasons for denial and thoroughness of investigation). A

5

conflict cannot be shown by showing the decision to deny benefits was

6

wrong. Harper v. Unum Life Ins. Co. Of America, 2007 WL 1792004

7

(E.D.Cal. June 19, 2007). Moreover, after a court has assessed the effect

8

of the conflict on the amount of discretion afforded, it may not use any

9

evidence outside the administrative record when deciding if the decision

10

to deny benefits was an abuse of discretion. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 970.

11

Accordingly, discovery into how and why the decision was made is not

12

allowed except when such evidence is being sought to show the existence

13

of a conflict. See Harper, 2007 WL 1792004 at *5; Sheakalee v. Fortis

14

Benefits Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4279383 at *5 (E.D.Cal. Sept.16, 2008).

15

Plaintiffs must be able to obtain information through discovery

16

relating to the extent and nature of the conflict. Groom v. Standard Ins.

17

Co., 492 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1205–06 (C.D.Cal. 2007) (“relevant inquiries

18

might include inquiries designed to obtain ‘evidence of malice, of

19

self-dealing, or of a parsimonious claims-granting history’ ”) (quoting

20

Abatie 458 F.3d at 968); see also Leu v. Cox Long–Term Disability Plan,

21

2009 WL 2219288 at *4 (D.Ariz. July 24, 2009) (allowing discovery into

22

“incentivized parsimonious claim management.”); Sheakalee v. Fortis

23

Benefits Ins. Co., 2008 WL at *3 (E.D.Cal. Sept. 16, 2008). Discovery,

24

however, cannot be unlimited and plaintiffs have no right to engage in

25

extensive fishing expeditions. Leu, 2009 WL 2219288 at *3.

26
27
28

Discussion
Plaintiff claims that the requested discovery relates to the nature
and extent of Defendant’s financial conflict of interest. Specifically,
-3-

12cv2917-L (MDD)

1

Plaintiff believes that evidence regarding the date of the termination of

2

the Group Policy covering Plaintiff and statistical evidence regarding the

3

number of persons receiving benefits under that policy post-termination

4

is relevant. Plaintiff’s theory of relevance is that the termination of the

5

policy exacerbated Defendant’s financial conflict because Defendant no

6

longer was receiving premium payments from Plaintiff’s former

7

employer. Evidence of the number of persons continuing to receive

8

benefits or granted benefits post-termination would tend to show the

9

extent of the conflict, suggests Plaintiff. Defendant objects to the

10

requests as irrelevant, asserts that Plaintiff is fishing and challenges

11

Plaintiff’s conflict theory as merely speculative. Plaintiff also seeks

12

evidence of Defendant’s policies and practices regarding the impact of

13

disability decisions of the Social Security Administration on claims

14

administration.

15

1. Interrogatory No. 4

16

Plaintiff asks for the date of the termination of the applicable

17

Group Policy. On the one hand, this evidence may assist the Court in

18

deciding how skeptically to view the conflicted administrator's decision.

19

Abatie, 458 F.3d at 968-69. However, an inference that Defendant was

20

motivated more strongly to deny claims post-termination may not be

21

justified. Once it stopped receiving premiums, Defendant may or may

22

not have been or gone “underwater” in providing benefits under this

23

Policy -- Defendant’s investments of the premiums may have provided

24

sufficient returns or reserves to cover the benefits paid. The answer to

25

the Interrogatory ultimately may have no place in the final analysis.

26

The Court finds its relevance to be marginal but will order Defendant to

27

provide the answer. Providing this evidence to Plaintiff will allow

28

Plaintiff to attempt to get the Court to consider it. Defendant can
-4-

12cv2917-L (MDD)

1

counter any adverse inference that may be drawn from the timing of the

2

termination of the policy with additional information, if it so chooses.

3

2. Interrogatories Nos. 5-8

4

In these Interrogatories, Plaintiff seeks certain statistical

5

information. Specifically, Plaintiff wants to know how many individuals

6

were receiving long term disability benefits under the Policy when it

7

terminated (Interrogatory No. 5); how many persons were granted

8

benefits post-termination (Interrogatory No. 6); how many persons were

9

receiving benefits on January 1 of each year post-termination up to

10

January 1, 2013 (Interrogatory No. 7); and, how many persons are now

11

receiving benefits (Interrogatory No. 8).

12

Plaintiff’s theory appears to be that answers to these requests may

13

provide the Court with some basis to determine the effect of the conflict

14

on the denial of Plaintiff’s claim. Considering that Defendant no longer

15

was receiving premium payments, the theory would be that benefits paid

16

caused a greater conflict to Defendant because it was operating at a loss.

17

The requests do not target specifically denials of claims. Several

18

courts have opined that information regarding denial of benefits is

19

meaningless without a finding that the denial was wrongful. See Roberts

20

v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 2013 WL 1431725 *6-7 (S.D.Cal. April

21

19, 2013); Dilley v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 256 F.R.D. 643, 645

22

(N.D.Cal. 2009). In these cases, the defendants also expressed a

23

significant burden in collecting the information requested. Defendant

24

has not asserted any particular burden in collecting this information; the

25

only question is relevance.

26

Because Plaintiffs are not seeking information on claims denied,

27

some of the concerns expressed in Roberts and Dilley are not present. It

28

is not clear, however, that the requested information provides or will
-5-

12cv2917-L (MDD)

1

lead to any information of relevance to the Court in assessing the impact

2

of the conflict. The number of persons receiving benefits at termination

3

versus the number of persons receiving benefits post-termination up to

4

January 1, 2013, may reflect a declining number. That fact, if shown,

5

does not demonstrate an effect on claims administration brought on by

6

the termination of the policy. There are myriad reasons why benefits

7

may terminate. As discussed above, the termination of benefits would

8

have to be wrongful for there to be any value.

9

The mere fact of paying benefits, post-termination, as mentioned in

10

the discussion of Interrogatory No. 4, sheds no light on the actual

11

financial burden, if any, imposed on Defendant post-termination. For

12

this information to have any value, the Court would have to examine the

13

amount of benefits paid versus the amount of earnings retained or

14

reserved against the policy. That inquiry appears beyond the scope of

15

the review occasioned by this case. Defendant need not answer

16

Interrogatories 5-8. The Court considers it sufficient, for Plaintiff’s

17

purposes, to require Defendant to produce the termination date of the

18

applicable policy pursuant to Interrogatory No. 4 and make what she can

19

of that information.

20

3. Request for Production No. 6(k)

21

Plaintiff seeks production of documents, including claims manuals

22

and the like, reflecting standards, practices and procedures for weighing

23

Social Security disability awards in evaluating long term benefit claims.

24

The basis for this request is the Defendant’s reference to the denial of

25

Plaintiff’s initial claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits

26

in its initial claims denial letter dated January 3, 2011. Having

27

reviewed the letter, the Court disagrees that Defendant relied on the

28

denial of SSI benefits as a basis to deny Plaintiff’s claim. The placement
-6-

12cv2917-L (MDD)

1

of the sentence is not within the paragraphs detailing the reasons for

2

denial. In context, it is informational only. (See ECF No. 38-1, Exh. 1).

3

Following Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of

4

her claim, the Social Security Administration granted benefits to

5

Plaintiff following the appeal of the denial of her claim for SSI. Plaintiff

6

notified Defendant but Defendant took no action as it had finally denied

7

Plaintiff’s claim earlier. These facts do not provide a reason to obtain

8

Defendant’s manuals and other materials regarding its weighing of the

9

grant of Social Security disability benefits on claims processing.

10

Consequently, Defendant need not respond to this request - the

11

information sought is not relevant in this case.

12

4. Request for Production No. 26

13

This request substantially mirrors the information sought in

14

Interrogatory Nos. 4-8. As provided above, Defendant must respond to

15

subpart (a) of the request but need not respond further.

16

Conclusion

17

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further

18

responses, as presented in this joint motion, is GRANTED IN PART

19

AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent that the Court has required

20

further responses, those responses are to served within fourteen (14)

21

days of the filing date of this Order, absent further Order of the Court.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

DATED: November 25, 2013

25
26

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

27
28
-7-

12cv2917-L (MDD)