Driscoll v. MetLife Insurance et al

Filing 121

ORDER re: 115 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 11/12/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN JOSEPH DRISCOLL,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

METLIFE & ANHEUSER-BUSCH
INBEV, INC.,

15
16

Case No.: 15CV1162-JLS(JMA)
ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
[DOC. NO. 115]

Defendants.

17
18

Pending before the Court is a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery

19

Dispute filed by the parties on August 8, 2018, and pursuant to which Plaintiff

20

Brian Joseph Driscoll (who is proceeding pro se and is referred to herein as

21

“Plaintiff” or “Driscoll”) seeks to compel further discovery responses from

22

Defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (erroneously sued as MetLife

23

Insurance, a non-existent business entity, and referred to herein as “MetLife”)

24

and Anheuser-Busch Companies LLC (erroneously sued as Anheuser-Busch

25

InBev Inc., a non-existent business entity and referred to herein as “Anheuser-

26

Busch”) (MetLife and Anheuser-Busch are jointly referred to herein as

27

“Defendants”). The Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission and

28

Requests for Production that are the subject of this motion were served on both
1
15CV1162-JLS(JMA)

1

Defendants on or around June 5, 2018. [Doc. No. 115, Decl. of Misty Murray ¶ 7.]

2

Defendants are reported to have responded with only objections.1 As set forth

3

below, Driscoll’s motion to compel is DENIED.

4

I.

BACKGROUND

5

This case arises out of Plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability (“LTD”)

6

benefits under his former employer Anheuser-Busch’s welfare benefit plan

7

regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

8

MetLife is the claims administrator for disability claims under the ERISA-

9

governed Plan established by Anheuser-Busch.

10

II.

11

LEGAL STANDARDS
In an ERISA-governed case when a de novo standard of review applies

12

“the court simply proceeds to evaluate whether the plan administrator correctly or

13

incorrectly denied benefits.”2 Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955,

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

1

The Court has not been provided with copies of the discovery requests or responses
that are the subject of this discovery motion. Copies of other document requests to MetLife and
Anheuser Busch and Special Interrogatories to MetLife were filed in connection with this
discovery motion; these requests appear to have been made during Plaintiff’s earlier efforts to
obtain discovery, as they are all dated September 19, 2017 and are labeled as “Set One.”
[Doc. No. 115, pp. 128-170.] Moreover, the declaration of Misty A. Murray filed in connection
with the parties’ discovery motion indicates Defendants’ responses to the discovery requests
Plaintiff served on June 5, 2018 are attached as Exhibits 7-12; however, this declaration was
filed without the referenced exhibits. [Id., pp. 17-19.]
Because the Court has not been provided with copies of the discovery requests and
responses at issue, it is unable to rule on Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s motion to
compel is procedurally improper because the discovery requests that are the subject of this
motion are substantially identical to those Plaintiff propounded nearly a year ago, on
September 19, 2017.
2

When a plan does not confer discretionary authority on the administrator to determine
eligibility for plan benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, the court applies a de novo
standard of review of the denial of benefits. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955,
963 (9th Cir. 2006). If a plan does confer discretionary authority as a matter of contractual
agreement, the standard of review shifts to abuse of discretion. Id. Defendants posit the de
novo standard of review applies here. Plaintiff presumably does not disagree with this
2
15CV1162-JLS(JMA)

1

963 (9th Cir. 2006). “[I]n most cases only the evidence that was before the plan

2

administrator at the time of determination should be considered.” Opeta v.

3

Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees, 484 F.3d 1211, 1217

4

(9th Cir. 2007) (citing Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Ben.

5

Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 1995)).

6

Extrinsic evidence should be considered “only when circumstances clearly

7

establish that additional information is necessary to conduct an adequate de

8

novo review of the benefit decision.” Opeta, 484 F.3d at 1217 (citing Mongeluzo,

9

46 F.3d at 944) (internal quotations and emphases omitted). The following is a

10

“non-exhaustive list of exceptional circumstances where introduction of evidence

11

beyond the administrative record could be considered necessary:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

[C]laims that require consideration of complex medical questions or
issues regarding the credibility of medical experts; the availability of
very limited administrative review procedures with little or no
evidentiary record; the necessity of evidence regarding interpretation
of the terms of the plan rather than specific historical facts; instances
where the payor and the administrator are the same entity and the
court is concerned about impartiality; claims which could have been
insurance contract claims prior to ERISA; and circumstances in which
there is additional evidence that the claimant could not have
presented in the administrative process.”

19
20

Id. (quoting Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 987 F.2d 1017, 1027 (4th Cir.

21

1993). “We do not intimate, however, that the introduction of new evidence is

22

required in such cases. A district court may well conclude that the case can be

23

properly resolved on the administrative record without the need to put the parties

24

to additional delay and expense.” Quesinberry, 987 F.2d at 1027; see also

25

Gonda v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 609, 613 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

26
27
28

contention as he has offered no countervailing argument. The Court’s analysis of the parties’
discovery dispute, therefore, assumes a de novo standard of review applies to this case.
3
15CV1162-JLS(JMA)

1

(“It makes little sense to allow broad and costly discovery when the court’s review

2

of the merits is limited to the administrative record (except in narrow

3

circumstances where additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate

4

de novo review.”); Polnicky v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 2014 WL

5

969973, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) (observing that district courts “have held

6

that ‘in light of Opeta’s limits on admissibility of evidence in de novo cases and

7

the ERISA’s policy of keeping proceedings inexpensive and expeditious, it is

8

appropriate to place similar limits on discovery’”). A bare showing of relevance

9

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 is not sufficient to permit discovery in an ERISA action.

10

Gonda, 300 F.R.D. at 613; Healy v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 2014 WL 5768537,

11

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014).

12

III.

DISCUSSION

13

Defendants have produced copies of the Plan and the administrative

14

record, which consists of approximately 4000 pages of documents that MetLife

15

relied on in making its determination of Driscoll’s claim for benefits. [Doc. No. 61-

16

3 – 61-42.] Driscoll claims in addition to these documents he needs discovery on

17

six topics: “(1) Defendants' structural conflict; (2) interpretation & application of

18

the terms of the [Anheuser-Busch] Plan; (3) similarity situated claimants; (4)

19

detailed information regarding IMC review history as pertaining to this case; (5)

20

procedural improprieties and (6) the operations and procedures by which

21

Defendants determine who is disabled according to the Plan.” [Doc. No. 115.]

22

Driscoll has not articulated, however, how any of this information is necessary in

23

order for the Court to conduct an adequate de novo review of MetLife’s benefit

24

decision. 3 He generally contends he is entitled to this discovery because ERISA,

25
26
27
28

3

See Valenzuela v. City of Calexico, 2015 WL 926149 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2015) (The
moving party “carries the burden of informing the court: (1) which discovery requests are the
subject of [its] motion to compel; (2) which of the defendants’ responses are disputed; (3) why
the responses are deficient; (4) the reasons defendants’ objections are without merit; and (5)
4
15CV1162-JLS(JMA)

1

DOL regulations and the Plan terms “requires a duty to disclose” without any

2

explanation as to why Defendants’ production of the Plan and administrative

3

record does not satisfy their obligation. The relevant inquiry is not whether

4

Defendants have an amorphous “duty to disclose” information to Plaintiff, but

5

rather whether exceptional circumstances exist such that the introduction of

6

evidence beyond the administrative record could be considered necessary. The

7

Court has no information to support the conclusion that it is. Driscoll’s motion to

8

compel further discovery responses is, therefore, DENIED.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 12, 2018

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

the relevance of the requested information to the prosecution of his action.” (emphasis added);
Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523 at *4 (E.D. Ca. Mar. 27, 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the
court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed
response, inform the court why the information is relevant and why Defendant’s objections are
not justified.”)

5
15CV1162-JLS(JMA)