Knowlton et al v. Ansheuser-Busch Companies, LLC et al

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 81 MOTION to Compel Certain Discover Responses from Defendants filed by Plaintiff Gary Lensenmayer, Plaintiff Brian Knowlton, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Joe Mullins, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Donald W. Mil ls, Jr., Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Andy Fichthorn, Plaintiff Charles R. Wetesnik, Plaintiff Douglas Minerd, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Nancy J Anderson, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Richard F. Angevine motion is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/18/14. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRIAN KNOWLTON, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Consolidated Case
No. 4:13-cv-210 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This class action has been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 against
defendants Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (AABC@), Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension
Plan (APlan@), Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Appeals Committee, and
Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Administrate Committee. Plaintiffs allege they are
former employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation (ABEC@), are salaried participants in the
Pension Plan, and are entitled to certain enhanced benefits under the Pension Plan pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (AERISA@), specifically 29 U.S.C. '
1132(a)(1).
Currently before the Court is the plaintiffs= motion to compel responses to discovery
requests served upon the defendants. Plaintiffs served three interrogatories and eight requests for
production. It appears that the parties are in dispute regarding Interrogatories 1 and 2 and
Document Requests 6 and 8.1 Interrogatories 1 and 2 seek a wide variety of specific information
for each of the approximately 900 class members, including address, employment term, dates of
1

Document Requests 4 and 5 were also at issue originally; however, plaintiffs’ reply memorandum (#88) states that
defendants have agreed to produce documents responsive to those requests.

1

termination and retirement, average annual earnings, and benefit information, among others.
Document Requests 6 and 8 seek materials that constitute the administrative record in this case;
defendants stated that they would gather and produce those documents no later than November 10,
2014. The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on November 7, but the Court presumes the
defendants made good on their promise to produce documents responsive to Requests 6 and 8.
Defendants have not responded to Interrogatories 1 or 2 yet because they say the
information plaintiffs seek is not relevant to the benefits decision currently under review in this
case; rather, the information pertains only to the amount of benefit available under different
scenarios and not the eligibility for the benefit enhancement at issue. The information plaintiffs
seek is relevant only if plaintiffs are successful. Moreover, defendants state that the information
plaintiffs seek is not collectively maintained in the ordinary course of business and that it will be
time and labor-intensive to collect it.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on November 10. The outcome of that
motion will determine whether the information plaintiffs seek must be produced. The Court will
therefore deny the motion to compel without prejudice until after disposition of the motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= motion to compel (#81) is DENIED without
prejudice.
Dated this

18th

day of November, 2014.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2