Sandoval v. Union Security Insurance Company

Filing 15

ORDER MODIFYING RULE 16 PROCEDURE - ERISA Because this is an action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, no scheduling conference is necessary. On or before April 7, 2016, counsel for the parties shall file a joint statement, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 3/8/16. (ktera)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00205-RPM
LUPE SANDOVAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER MODIFYING RULE 16 PROCEDURE - ERISA
Because this is an action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), no scheduling conference under Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 is necessary. As an alternative, it is
ORDERED:
That on or before April 7, 2016, counsel for the parties shall file a joint statement
addressing the following matters:
1.

Whether the parties agree upon the contents of the administrative record.

2.

Whether the parties agree upon the standard of review. If there is a
disagreement, state the parties’ positions.

3.

Whether any discovery is necessary. If so, provide a statement of what
discovery is sought and why it is necessary.

4.

Whether there is any reason to proceed in any manner other than to establish a
briefing schedule based on the administrative record.

5.

Whether the parties are in agreement that the submission of the entire
administrative record is not necessary, understanding that those portions relied
upon will be submitted as appendices to the briefs.

6.

The dates for the filing of briefs addressing the issues.

If there is disagreement on any of these matters, the Court will set a conference to
resolve the disputes.

DATED: March 8th, 2016
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
__________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

2