Campbell v. Sussex County Federal Credit Union

Filing 137

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 131 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Claims for Future Benefits or Alternatively for Sanctions Under Rule 37(c)(1) (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/22/2015. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

PAULA M. CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 10-710-RGA

v.
SUSSEX COUNTY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendant has filed a motion for partial summary judgment or alternatively for
sanctions. (D.I. 131).
Based on the statute and the case law cited, to wit, Wade v. Life Ins. Co. ofN

Am., 245 F.Supp. 2d 182, 188 (D. Me. 2003), it appears to me that Plaintiff cannot
recover a lump sum for "future benefits." She says she is not seeking "future benefits."
(D.I. 135 at p. 10). She says she is seeking to "enforce[e] a right." (Id. at p. 8). If in fact
she proves the right, what it appears she is entitled to is the dollar value of what she has
been denied in the past and a court order that would require Defendant to provide that
right in the future. See Wade v. Life Ins. Co., 245 F.Supp. 2d at 188 ("no ERISA
provision permits the Court to predict the future in order to fashion appropriate relief
under the statute."). I think I would be able to enter an appropriate declaratory judgment.
I am, however, not 100% clear on what such a declaratory judgment would involve. If I
decide she is entitled to future benefits, I expect I would need to do something to make

her whole, and until I am satisfied that I can fashion an appropriate declaratory judgment,
I cannot rule out other forms of relief.
Thus, the motion for partial summary judgment (D .I. 131) is DENIED.
The motion for sanctions (D.I. 131) is also DENIED. Any prejudice to
Defendant can still be cured in time for trial. Plaintiff is ordered to supplement its expert
reports with the service of expert reports and the related disclosures that fully comply
with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). 1 Plaintiff is ORDERED to do this by June 30, 2015, and, at the
same time, provide Defendant with dates when Defendant may take the depositions of the
experts. Defendant is permitted to take such depositions should it choose to do so. If
Defendant decides to use any experts, it is to notify Plaintiff of its intent to do so by July
8, 2015, and it is to provide expert reports by July 24, 2015. If Plaintiff wants to depose
Defendant's experts, she may do so, and the parties are expected to work together to
make that happen.
The Court will not address issues raised in footnotes, see D.I. 132, p.6 n.5,
although Plaintiff will want to consider supplementation of its expert reports if
underlying assumptions at an earlier time are no longer valid.
IT IS SO ORDERED this2i_ day of June 2015.

~Aq (h.~rJl!ir/
United States District Judge

1

It appears to be undisputed that Plaintiff's expert disclosures do not comply with the Rule.