Corrigan v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston et al

Filing 2

ORDER, setting Scheduling Conference for 10/24/2006 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 602 before Judge Phillip S. Figa, signed by Judge Phillip S. Figa on 09/14/06. (rlp2, )

Download PDF
Corrigan v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston et al Doc. 2 Case 1:06-cv-01798-PSF-BNB Document 2 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Phillip S. Figa Civil Action No. 06-cv-01798-PSF-BNB JEANINE CORRIGAN, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, a/k/a Liberty Mutual; and OPPENHEIMER FUNDS, INC., 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). In light thereof, E ) 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 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 8:30 a.m., before the undersigned in Courtroom 602 of the United States Courthouse located at 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties shall not prepare or submit a proposed scheduling order; however, consistent with D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1, lead counsel shall attend the conference. Case 1:06-cv-01798-PSF-BNB Document 2 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 2 of 3 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 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 379 F.3d 997, 1006-07 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1026. 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? Is there a need for discovery? If so, as to what issues? (d) Any other issues enumerated in F.R.Civ.P. 16(c). 2 Case 1:06-cv-01798-PSF-BNB Document 2 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 3 of 3 4. Because the first scheduling conference may be set before the defendant has been served or has appeared in the case, counsel for the plaintiff is responsible for notifying the defendant of the setting of the first Rule 16(b) Conference. If plaintiff's counsel is unable to notify the defendant, then plaintiff's counsel shall, at least five (5) working days prior to the scheduled Rule 16(b) Conference, so notify the Court so that the conference can be rescheduled. DATED: September 14, 2006 BY THE COURT: s/ Phillip S. Figa ________________________________ Phillip S. Figa United States District Judge 3

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?