Holmes v. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Long Term Disability Plan

Filing 33

ORDER: re: 27 MOTION to Stay ANY DECISION ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, TO OPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY, AND IF NECESSARY, TO SET THE CASE FOR TRIAL REGARDING ANY MATERIAL ISSUES OF DISPUTED FACT filed by Lucrecia Carpio Holmes is denied, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/29/11. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02986-REB-BNB
LUCRECIA CARPIO HOLMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Any Decision on the
Administrative Record, To Open Limited Discovery, and If Necessary, To Set the Case for
Trial Regarding Any Material Issues of Disputed Fact [Doc. # 27, filed 6/9/2011] (the
“Motion”). I held a hearing on the Motion this morning and made rulings on the record, which
are incorporated here. The Motion is DENIED.
The plaintiff claims to need discovery to determine “which document or set of documents
actually constitutes the Plan in this case.” Motion [Doc. # 27] at p. 3. She claims that the need
to identify the plan first became apparent following the Supreme Court’s decision in CIGNA
Corp. v. Amara, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011). In Amara, the Court held:
[W]e conclude that the summary documents, important as they are,
provide communication with beneficiaries about the plan, but that
their statements do not themselves constitute the terms of the plan
for purposes of § 502(a)(1)(B).

Id. Until that ruling, the plaintiff argues, parties simply relied on the provisions of summary plan
documents as providing the “terms” of the plan. At the hearing on the Motion, plaintiff’s
counsel claimed to have no idea what constitutes the applicable plan.
I entered a Scheduling Order [Doc. # 7] on March 10, 2010. The Scheduling Order
required that the administrative record be provided by May 17, 2010; set May 31, 2019, as the
deadline for filing motions to seek discovery; and required that motions to supplement the
administrative record be submitted by July 30, 2010. Id. at p. 4.
The administrative record was received on May 18, 2010. Administrative Record [Doc.
# 11] (hereafter “Admin. R.”). It includes, as the first document, the Group Long Term
Disability Insurance Policy, No. G4048742, issued by Fortis Benefits Insurance Company to the
Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Admin. R. at US000001-36.
A review of the Administrative Record shows that in its letter denying benefits dated
May 27, 2005, the defendant relied on Fortis Policy No. G4048742, stating:
This letter shall serve as notification of our denial of your longterm disability claim. In order to receive benefits under policy
number 4048742, you must meet the contractual definition of
disability and satisfy all relevant policy provisions.
Admin. R. at US001337-40. In addition, the letter denying benefits quoted the “Occupational
Test” for establishing a disability, see Admin. R. at US001337, which is taken directly from the
terms of the Fortis Policy No. G4048742. Admin. R. at US000008.
On September 29, 2010, the defendant submitted its Brief on the Administrative Record
[Doc. # 16] (the “Defendant’s Brief”). In Defendant’s Brief, the Fortis Policy No. G4048742 is

2

identified as the plan.1 The Defendant’s Brief repeatedly relies on the provisions of the Fortis
Policy No. G4048742 as constituting the plan. See, e.g., Defendant’ Brief at ¶5 (quoting the
“Authority” provision of the Fortis Policy No. G4048742, found at Admin. R. US001376); and
at ¶6 (quoting the “Review Procedure” provision of the Fortis Policy No. G4048742, found at
Admin. R. US001377).
The Motion is, at its base, a request to amend the Scheduling Order to take discovery
and, if necessary based on that discovery, to supplement the administrative record. A scheduling
order may be amended only upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In this
regard:
Rule 16(b) does not focus on the bad faith of the movant, or the
prejudice to the opposing party. Rather, it focuses on the diligence
of the party seeking leave to modify the scheduling order to permit
the proposed amendment. Properly construed, “good cause”
means that the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a
party’s diligent efforts. . . . Carelessness is not compatible with a
finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.
Colorado Visionary Academy v. Medtronic, Inc., 194 F.R.D. 684, 687 (D. Colo. 2000)(internal
quotation and citation omitted).
I find that the plaintiff knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have
known by shortly after the filing of the administrative record that the defendant was asserting
that the Fortis Policy No. G4048742 was the plan. If the plaintiff had any doubts about what
constituted the plan, its authenticity, whether it was properly adopted, and the like, she could and
in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have sought leave to conducted discovery on the

1

Another copy of the Fortis Policy No. G4048742 is contained in the administrative
record at US001349-84. The defendant cited to this copy of the Policy as constituting the plan.
Defendant’ Brief [Doc. # 16] at ¶¶4-6.
3

issue within the time allowed by the Scheduling Order.
To the extent that there was any previous doubt, the defendant made clear its position that
the Fortis Policy No. G4048742 constitutes the plan in the Defendant’s Brief [Doc. # 16] filed on
September 29, 2010. If the plaintiff did not agree with that assertion, some prompt action was
required.
The plaintiff did not file the Motion until June 9, 2011. I find that it was unreasonable,
and demonstrates a lack of diligence, for the plaintiff to wait 11 months from the filing of the
administrative record and more than eight months from the filing of the Defendant’s Brief to
seek discovery on the issue of what constitutes the plan.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion [Doc. # 27] is DENIED.
Dated June 29, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

4