Taplin v. Swift & Company Life Insurance Program et al

Filing 5

ORDER setting Case Management/Scheduling Conference for 6/13/2006 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 602 before Judge Phillip S. Figa. Signed by Judge Phillip S. Figa on 04/24/06. (rlp, )

Taplin v. Swift & Company Life Insurance Program et al

Doc. 5

Case 1:06-cv-00767-PSF-MJW

Document 5

Filed 04/25/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Phillip S. Figa

Civil Action No. 06-cv-00767-PSF-MJW

ANTHONY TAPLIN, Plaintiff, v. SW IFT & COMPANY LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM, CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE, and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendants.

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE UNDER F.R.CIV.P. 16

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a Complaint filed by the plaintiff seeking to recover benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (" RISA", particularly 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and (e), which was removed E ) to the United States District Court by Notice of Removal filed April 21, 2006. In light thereof, a scheduling conference pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 16(a) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 is necessary. It is, therefore, ORDERED: 1. A scheduling conference is set for June 13, 2006 at 8:30 a.m., in

Courtroom A602 of the United States Courthouse located at 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties shall not prepare or submit a proposed scheduling order;

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-00767-PSF-MJW

Document 5

Filed 04/25/2006

Page 2 of 3

however, consistent with D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1, lead counsel shall attend the conference. 2. At least ten days prior to the scheduling conference, the parties shall

stipulate to and file all pertinent ERISA plan documents including summary plan descriptions. At the conference, the parties shall be prepared to address all applicable provisions in the plan documents. 3. the following: (a) Standard of Review: · · · Do the plan documents confer discretion upon the plan administrator to interpret the plan? Is this Court' review of the plan administrator' decision de novo s s or under an arbitrary and capricious standard? If under an arbitrary and capricious standard requiring deference to the plan administrator, is there a " onflict of interest"or other c " rocedural irregularity"that requires the Court to " lide along the p s scale"with respect to the amount of deference, as required under Fought v. Unum, 379 F.3d 997, 1006-07 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 1972 (2005). At the scheduling conference, the parties shall be prepared to address

(b)

Administrative Record: · · W hat documents comprise the administrative record? How much time do the parties need to compile and submit the admini strative record?

(c)

Discover y: · Does the claimant contend that the plan administrator had a conflict of interest in administering the plan? If so, are there facts in dispute concerning this issue? 2

Case 1:06-cv-00767-PSF-MJW

Document 5

Filed 04/25/2006

Page 3 of 3

· (d)

Is there a need for discovery? If so, as to what issues?

Any other issues enumerated in F.R.Civ.P. 16(c).

DATED: April 25, 2006. BY THE COURT: s: Phillip S. Figa ________________________________ Phillip S. Figa United States District Judge

3