Deloach v Connecticut General Life Insurance Company

Filing 21

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Objection 6 . Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GLEN DELOACH, Plaintiff, vs. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. _____________________________/ ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION (#6) This is an ERISA action in which plaintiff Glen DeLoach seeks recovery of long term disability income benefits which was removed to federal court on October 15, 2009. Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, defendant Connecticut General Life Insurance Company filed a sealed administrative record on November 6, 2009. On December 3, 2009, plaintiff DeLoach filed an objection that the seven-volume administrative record does not contain the controlling plan documents. (# 6). Defendant did not file a response to the objection. DeLoach filed his motion to reverse the denial of long term disability income benefits on March 26, 2010. Within the motion, DeLoach refers to "[t]he applicable A&P Plan language" at Administrative Record, page 1127. See Plaintiff's March 26, 2010 Motion to Reverse, at 12. DeLoach does not argue in his motion that the Administrative Record lacks the controlling plan documents. Accordingly, DeLoach's December 3, 2009 objection is hereby OVERRULED. DeLoach is not, however, precluded from arguing in his reply brief, with supporting documentation, the plan Case No. 09-CV-14087 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH documents he believes were not included in the Administrative Record. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2010 s/George Caram Steeh GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on April 1, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Josephine Chaffee Deputy Clerk 2

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?