Schwartz et al v. Keolis Commuter Services, LLC. et al

Filing 41

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. In re. to 40 Joint Status Report ("JSR"), Plaintiffs request in the JSR for deposition discovery is DENIED.Defendants shall file their dispositive motion(s) by July 31, 2017. Plaintiffs shall file their combined opposition/cross-motion by August 31, 2017. Defendants combined reply/opposition is due September 15, 2017, and Plaintiffs combined surreply/reply is due September 29, 2017. The parties shall follow this Session's Stand ing Order regarding briefing summary judgment motions, except any provisions that are inconsistent with the instant Order. ( dispostive motions due by 7/31/2017),opposition/cross motion due by 8/31/2017; reply/opposition due by 9/15/2017, sur-reply/reply due by 9/29/2017.)(Montes, Mariliz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
ROMAN SCHWARTZ, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 16-cv-11506-LTS
)
KEOLIS COMMUTER SERVICES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER
June 28, 2017
SOROKIN, J.
The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report (“JSR”; Doc. 40). Plaintiffs’
request in the JSR for deposition discovery is DENIED. Plaintiffs have not shown “very good
reason” to “overcome the strong presumption” in ERISA cases against expanding the record
beyond the information that was before the plan administrator. Liston v. Unum Corp. Officer
Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2003). For example, Plaintiffs have not made “a
colorable claim of bias” or of a conflict on the part of the plan administrator. Denmark v.
Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 566 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ ten suggested topics for deposition discovery (Doc. 40-8) are the
opposite of “modest, specifically targeted discovery,” and Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
explained how discovery on any of those topics, much less all of them, may affect the outcome
of this case. Id. (citation omitted). Finally, the Court notes that at least one of the pieces of
information that Plaintiffs claim they “still do not know” – i.e., “what documents Keolis sent to
Unum concerning Mrs. Schwartz’s enrollment” – is something they do know, as Defendants
1

were already ordered to produce “all written documents or communication regarding
supplemental life insurance, specifically as it relates to the decedent.” Doc. 40 at 1-2; Doc. 34 at
2. For all these reasons, the Court has insufficient basis to allow Plaintiffs’ request for
deposition discovery.
Defendants shall file their dispositive motion(s) by July 31, 2017. Plaintiffs shall file
their combined opposition/cross-motion by August 31, 2017. Defendants’ combined
reply/opposition is due September 15, 2017, and Plaintiffs’ combined surreply/reply is due
September 29, 2017. The parties shall follow this Session’s Standing Order regarding briefing
summary judgment motions, 1 except any provisions that are inconsistent with the instant Order.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

1

The Standing Order is available at: http://www mad.uscourts.gov/boston/pdf/sorokin/LTS_SO_SumJgmt.pdf.

2