Perera v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Filing
42
ORDER denying 29 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 4/20/2018. (ADM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CHINTA M. PERERA, individually and
as parent and legal guardian of J.R.P.
and A.L.P., minor children,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CASE NO. 3:17-cv-195-J-39MCR
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York corporation,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Production of Documents (“Motion”) (Doc. 29) and Defendant’s Response thereto
(“Response”) (Doc. 31).
Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce documents
responsive to Request No. 2 of Plaintiff’s Second Requests for Production,
including Defendant’s accidental death claims manual, and awarding Plaintiff her
reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in bringing the Motion pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 (Doc. 29.)
Request No. 2 seeks: “All written policies or procedures that governed or
1
To the extent the Motion requested that the excerpts, which had already been
produced and designated as “Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” be filed under seal, the
Motion was granted on April 9, 2018 when the Court directed Defendant to file the subject
excerpts in camera by April 13, 2018. (Doc. 34.) Defendant complied by filing the excerpts
under seal on April 12, 2018. (See Doc. 37.)
influenced your consideration of the Claim.” (Doc. 29-1 at 3.) Defendant
responded to this request as follows:
MetLife objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
[c]onfidential, proprietary information or trade secrets. Subject to,
and without waiving these objections, MetLife states it did not utilize
any written policies or procedures regarding the processing of
common carrier benefits in the processing of Plaintiff’s claim for
benefits. The information reviewed and relied upon by MetLife in its
administration of Plaintiff’s claim for common carrier benefits is
included in the Administrative Record, Bates labeled
“PERERA_AR_000001-00149.” MetLife further responds that,
although it consulted no written policies or procedures regarding the
adjudication of common carrier benefits in connection with Plaintiff’s
claim, subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order, it will
produce relevant portions of AD&D claims manual related to
common carrier claims.
(Doc. 29-2 at 2.)
After the parties executed a confidentiality agreement (see Doc. 29-3),
Defendant produced four excerpts, which were later filed under seal pursuant to
the Court’s Order (see Doc. 37). Defendant states that these excerpts constitute
all of its internal policies and procedures related to any common carrier claims.
(Doc. 31 at 4.) Defendant further states that these excerpts were extracted from
its searchable electronic database, known as the Institutional Life Claims Library
(“ILCL”), where Defendant maintains its claim handling guidelines.2 (Doc. 31 at 4;
see also Doc. 31-1 at 1-2.)
2
Defendant states that “[i]f one were to attempt to print out the entirety of the
electronic database, it would likely comprise at least a million pages of information.” (Doc.
31 at 6 n.8; Doc. 31-1 at 2.) It adds that the database “contains embedded hyperlinks to
additional resources that are not searchable.” (Id.)
2
To the extent Plaintiff requests production of Defendant’s accidental death
claims manual, Defendant asserts that no such document exists,3 but even if it
did, it did not govern or influence Defendant’s consideration of Plaintiff’s claim.
Defendant contends that its guidelines do not fall within the purview of 29 C.F.R.
§ 2560.503–1(m)(8), because, as stated in the Declaration of Pati Casey,
“MetLife claim administrators did not consult, utilize, or rely upon any internal
MetLife written policies or procedures regarding claims handling and
administration of common carrier benefits in connection with Plaintiff’s claim,”
and, instead, “MetLife relied exclusively upon information contained within the
governing Plan documents and the Administrative Record.” (Doc. 31-2 at 2.)
Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and arguments, the Court is
in agreement with Defendant. As stated in Bradford, “ERISA regulations do not
require production of the entire Claims Management Guidelines, but only the
guidelines that were actually consulted and used in connection with adjudicating
the plaintiff’s claims.” Bradford v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No.: 3:05-cv-240, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97463, *4 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 18, 2006) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). As Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that the
guidelines were “relied upon” or “submitted, considered, or generated” in
3
As stated in the Declaration of Leslie Coughlin, “[n]either the claims guidelines as
a whole, nor the claims guidelines related to particular types of claims (e.g., Accidental
Death and Dismemberment claims) are maintained as or within any sort of ‘document’ or
‘manual.’” (Doc. 31-1 at 2.)
3
reviewing Plaintiff’s claim, 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(m)(8), “there is no reason for
the guidelines to be produced or included in the administrative record,” Bradford,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97463 at *5. See also Brooks v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 526
F. Supp. 2d 534, 536-37 (D. Md. 2007) (“Aside from speculative assertions that
MetLife must have or should have consulted the [Claims Management
Guidelines] in determining [plaintiff’s] eligibility for benefits, [plaintiff] has failed to
present concrete evidence that the guidelines were ‘relied upon’ or ‘submitted,
considered, or generated’ in reviewing her claim. Through the declaration of Ms.
Sullivan, on the other hand, MetLife has declared under penalty of perjury that the
Guidelines were not referred to in any way.”); Wright v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No.
07-1808 (RBW), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44274, *51 (D.D.C. May 5, 2009) (citing
Brooks, 526 F. Supp. 2d at 536-37) (“[W]here a plaintiff, as here, offers nothing
but ‘speculative assertions that MetLife must have or should have consulted [its
claims manual] in determining [his] eligibility for benefits,’ and where the plaintiff
has put forth no ‘concrete evidence that the guidelines were ‘relied upon’ or
‘submitted, considered, or generated’ in MetLife’s processing of his claim, and
where ‘MetLife has declared under penalty of perjury that [its internal] [g]uidelines
were not referred to in any way,’ the Court will not ‘look behind [the] sworn
declaration’ and second-guess MetLife’s assertions.”).
To the extent Plaintiff asserts that the guidelines are relevant in
demonstrating “compliance with the administrative processes and safeguards”
4
that plans must adopt, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(m)(8)(iii), the
Department of Labor “has made clear that the disclosure requirement . . . is
limited to materials specifically generated in connection with a particular adverse
benefit determination” and that “‘relevant’ compliance information may not exist
with respect to every benefits eligibility determination.” Brooks, 526 F. Supp. 2d
at 537 (emphasis in original). As stated in the Declaration of Pati Casey, “MetLife
claim administrators did not consult, utilize, or rely upon any internal MetLife
written policies or procedures regarding claims handling and administration of
common carrier benefits in connection with Plaintiff’s claim.” (Doc. 31-2 at 2.) In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court will not find that Defendant’s
guidelines are relevant compliance verification materials. Brooks, 526 F. Supp.
2d at 537.
Based on the foregoing and for the reasons stated in Defendant’s
Response, the Motion is due to be denied. As such, Plaintiff’s request for an
award of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the Motion is denied.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B). Although Defendant also seeks an award of
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in responding to the Motion, the
Court declines to award such fees and costs to Defendant as Plaintiff’s Motion
was substantially justified. See id.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.
To the extent the Motion seeks an order compelling Defendant to
5
produce documents responsive to Request No. 2, the Motion (Doc. 29) is
DENIED.
2.
Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs associated
with bringing or responding to the Motion.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on April 20, 2018.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
6
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?