Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 130

ORDER affirming Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's May 31, 2012 Order 113 . (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 07/05/2012. (rlb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota as Administrator
Civil No. 11-2529 (DWF/JJG)
of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
Pension Equity Plan; CentraCare Health System, on
Behalf of Itself and the Sisters of the Order of
Saint Benedict Retirement Plan; Supplemental Benefit
Committee of the International Truck and Engine
Corp. Retiree Supplemental Benefit Trust, as
Administrator of the International Truck and
Engine Corp. Retiree Supplemental Benefit Trust;
ORDER
Jerome Foundation; Meijer, Inc., as Administrator
of the Meijer OMP Pension Plan and Meijer Hourly
Pension Plan, Participants in the Meijer Master
Pension Trust; Nebraska Methodist Health System,
Inc., on Behalf of Itself, and as Administrator of the
Nebraska Methodist Hospital Foundation, the
Nebraska Methodist Health System Retirement
Account Plan, and the Hennie Edmundson Memorial
Hospital Employee Retirement Plan; North Memorial
Health Care; The Order of Saint Benedict, as the
St. John's University Endowment and the St. John's
Abbey Endowment; The Twin City Hospitals-Minnesota
Nurses Association Pension Plan Pension Committee,
as Administrator of the Twin City Hospitals-Minnesota
Nurses Association Pension Plan; Administrative
Committee of the Joint Hospitals Pension Board, as
Administrator of the Twin City Hospitals Pension Plan
for Licensed Practical Nurses; The Board of Trustees
of the Tuckpointers Local 52 Pension Trust Fund, as
administrator of the Tuckpointers Local 52 Pension
Trust Fund, and the Board of Trustees of the Chicago
Area Joint Welfare Committee for the Pointing,
Cleaning and Caulking Industry Local 52, as administrator
for the Chicago area Joint Welfare Committee for the
Pointing, Cleaning and Caulking Industry Local 52;
and The El Paso County Retirement Plan,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s
(“Defendant”) appeal (Doc. No. 114) of Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham’s May 31,
2012 informal discovery order (Doc. No. 113) insofar as the Magistrate denied
Defendant’s request for discovery related to ERISA Plaintiffs’ participation in
Defendant’s and other securities lending programs. Plaintiffs filed a response to
Defendant’s appeal on June 27, 2012. (Doc. No. 127.)
The Court must modify or set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order
found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a). This is an “extremely deferential standard.” Reko v.
Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). “A finding is
‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Chakales v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996)
(quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Having
reviewed the record and the submissions of counsel, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge
Graham’s Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Defendant argues that documents related to the ERISA Plaintiffs’ participation in
Defendant’s and other securities lending programs are relevant to Plaintiffs’ ERISA

2

fiduciary duty claim and are thus discoverable. (Doc. No. 114 at 6-14.) Defendant
contends that such information is relevant to causation as well as the materiality of any
non-disclosures or misrepresentations made by Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiffs contend,
however, that, given the cumulative nature of materials sought by Defendant, the
Magistrate’s ruling reasonably limited the scope of discovery. (Doc. No. 127 at 8-13.)
Plaintiffs further note that Defendant is already in possession of any information related
to securities lending programs that could be located from Plaintiffs’ files. (Id. at 9-11.)
In light of the foregoing, and the records and proceedings herein, the Court
concludes that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the discovery ruling is either
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s appeal and
affirms Magistrate Judge Graham’s May 31, 2012 Order in all respects. 1
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Jeanne J.
Graham’s May 31, 2012 Order (Doc. No. [113]) is AFFIRMED.

Dated: July 5, 2012

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

1

The Court further notes that informal discovery conferences before the Magistrate
are ongoing.
3