Dragus v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 7/21/2016: Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's request for additional discovery made in open court on February 18, 2016, is granted in part and denied in part, as stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant must provide the claim file and administrative record to Plaintiff for discovery on or by July 31, 2016. Plaintiff is not entitled to Rule 26(a) initial disclosures or additional discovery at this time.Mailed notice(mad, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN DRAGUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 15-C-09135
Hon. Marvin E. Aspen
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
John Dragus, (“Plaintiff”), has brought the present action against Reliance Standard Life
Insurance Company, (“Defendant”), for the recovery of long-term disability insurance benefits
under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) following Defendant’s denial of his benefits claim. On
February 18, 2016 in open court, Plaintiff requested additional discovery. (See Minute Entry
from Feb. 18, 2016 (Dkt. No. 12).) We ordered Defendant to file formal objections to Plaintiff’s
discovery request. (Id.) We now consider Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery.
BACKGROUND
The following information comes from the complaint, unless otherwise noted. Before
January 1, 2014, Plaintiff worked for SMG, a venue management company operating in Chicago,
Illinois. (Compl. (Dkt No. 1) ¶ 8.) As an employee of SMG, Plaintiff was covered under an
employee welfare benefit plan that included a group long-term disability insurance policy
underwritten and administrated by Defendant. (Id. ¶ 7.) This plan is subject to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (Id. ¶ 1).
Plaintiff began missing work on January 1, 2014 due to health problems. (Id. ¶ 13.)
Plaintiff received short-term disability benefits starting on February 14, 2014. (Id. ¶ 14.) After
the exhaustion of his short-term disability benefits, Plaintiff applied for long-term disability
benefits on April 2, 2014. (Id. ¶ 16.) Defendant denied Plaintiff’s application on
September 8, 2014. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff filed the present suit challenging that denial on
October 15, 2015. (Id. ¶ 10.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff raises three discovery related concerns. First, Plaintiff states that he has not
received the claim file. (Pl. Resp. (Dkt. No. 15) at 2, 5.) Second, Plaintiff seeks initial
disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). (Id. at 4–5.) Third, Plaintiff seeks “the
full panoply of discovery provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id. at 2.) We
consider each request in turn.
I.
Discovery in ERISA Actions
The scope of discovery in ERISA actions is determined by the applicable standard of
review for the type of ERISA plan at issue. Weddington v. Aetna Life Ins. Comp.,
No. 15 C 1268, 2015 WL 6407764, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2015). Accordingly, we must first
determine which standard of review applies here.
a. The Arbitrary and Capricious Standard Applies in this Case
ERISA actions usually receive de novo review “unless the benefit plan gives the
administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to
construe the terms of the plan.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115,
109 S. Ct. 948, 957–58 (1989); Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corp. Comprehensive Disability Prot.
Plan, 195 F.3d 975, 980 (7th Cir. 1999). When the benefit plan gives an administrator
discretionary authority, an arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies. Cerentano v.
2
UMWA Health & Ret. Funds, 735 F.3d 976, 981 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Tompkins v. Cent.
Laborers’ Pension Fund, 712 F.3d 995, 999 (7th Cir. 2013)).
The parties agree that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies here.
(Pl. Resp. at 1; Def. Statement (Dkt. No. 13) at 1–3.) The SMG benefit plan at issue provides
that the Defendant “shall serve as the claims review fiduciary . . . [and t]he claims review
fiduciary has the discretionary authority to interpret the Plan and the insurance policy and to
determine eligibility for benefits. Decision by the claims review fiduciary shall be complete,
final and binding on all parties.” (Compl., Ex. A at 17.)
b. Discovery Available under Arbitrary and Capricious Review
The scope of discovery is severely limited in ERISA cases reviewed under the arbitrary
and capricious standard. Perlman, 195 F.3d at 982 (holding that discovery has never been
allowed “where the question is whether a decision is . . . arbitrary and capricious”). Where the
arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies, our review is limited to the administrative
record, and typically, outside discovery is not allowed.1 Perlman, 195 F.3d at 982; Warner v.
Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 12 C 2782, 2013 WL 3874060, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2013);
Semien v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 03 C 4795, 2004 WL 1151608, at *2 (N.D. Ill.
Apr. 21, 2004), aff’d, 436 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2006) (“[R]elevant materials for discovery are
1
This general proposition excluding discovery outside of the administrative record also appears
to apply to initial Rule 26(a) disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(i) (stating that “an
action for review on an administrative record,” is exempt from initial disclosures); compare Lee
v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, No. 08–140, 2010 WL 2231943, at *5 (D. Or. Apr. 1, 2010)
(“In fact, in an ERISA case, the court only reviews the administrative record such that initial
disclosures are not necessary); with Durham v. IDA Group Benefit Trust, 276 F.R.D. 259, 264
(N.D. Ind. 2011) (permitting initial disclosures in ERISA case reviewed under a de novo
standard).
3
materials that were before the plan administrators when they reached their decision.”); Peltzer v.
Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 1 C 2585, 2002 WL 1858786, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2002).
c. The Conflict of Interest Exception
While discovery under the arbitrary and capricious standard is generally limited;
“[w]here a claimant makes specific factual allegations of misconduct or bias in a plan
administrator’s review procedures, limited discovery is appropriate.” Semien, 436 F.3d at 815.
Discovery is not automatic, instead, a “claimant must demonstrate two factors before limited
discovery becomes appropriate.” Id. The claimant must: (1) “identify a specific conflict of
interest or instance of misconduct,” and (2) “must make a prima facie showing that there is good
cause to believe that limited discovery will reveal a procedural defect in the plan administrator’s
determination.” Id. This two-part test “presents a high bar for individuals whose claims have
been denied by a plan administrator with discretionary authority.” Id.
II.
Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests
Plaintiff asks us to: (1) order Defendant to provide Plaintiff the administrative record and
claim file, (2) order Defendant to submit initial Rule 26(a) disclosures, and to (3) permit Plaintiff
“the full panoply of discovery provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Pl. Resp.
at 2.)
Based on our discussion above, we grant Plaintiff’s request for his claim file and
administrative record. Perlman, 195 F.3d at 982; Semien, 436 F.3d at 815; Warner,
2013 WL 3874060, at *7; Peltzer, 2002 WL 1858786, at *2. At this time, we find that Plaintiff
has not made a sufficient showing to meet the conflict of interest exception (perhaps because he
has not yet reviewed the administrative record). Semien, 436 F.3d at 815. Plaintiff’s requests for
initial disclosures and further discovery are denied.
4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s request for
discovery. Defendant must provide the claim file and administrative record to Plaintiff for
discovery on or by July 31, 2016. Plaintiff is not entitled to Rule 26(a) initial disclosures or
additional discovery at this time. It is so ordered.
____________________________________
Marvin E. Aspen
United States District Judge
Dated: July 21, 2016
Chicago, Illinois
5
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?