Boles v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

Filing 88

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SCOTT A. BOLES,
Plaintiff,

4:11CV3031

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, (Filing No. 78). 1 For the reasons set forth
below, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

The complaint filed by the plaintiff alleges ERISA claims for the recovery of
benefits on two disability income insurance policies issued by UNUM Life Insurance
Company of America (“UNUM”). Discovery commenced and the parties stipulated to a
Protective Order addressing how the parties would handle the disclosure of confidential
information.

UNUM objected to certain interrogatories served on it by Boles.

In

response, Boles brought a motion to compel responses from UNUM. After briefing and
oral argument, the court entered a Memorandum and Order granting Boles’ motion to
compel, finding Boles was entitled to limited discovery on the issue of UNUM’s potential
conflict of interest in determining Boles’ eligibility for disability benefits. (Filing No.
69).

1

There is also a pending motion to unrestrict access to the Memorandum and
Order ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, (Filing No. 69). Ruling on that matter will
be stayed, pending the outcome of the parties’ mediation.

UNUM has filed a motion to reconsider the Memorandum and Order granting
Boles’ Motion to Compel. Although UNUM has complied with the Order and provided
Boles with the requested discovery, UNUM takes issue with some of the statements made
by the undersigned in her opinion and requests that the court remove “factual conclusions
about [UNUM’s] handling of [Boles’] claim . . . and broad accusatory statements about
[UNUM’s] culture and claims practices that have no support in the limited record before
the court.” Filing No. 79, at CM/ECF p. 11.

ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the “court may relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding . . . .” The rule further enumerates several grounds under
which a party may seeks relief and a catch-all provision stating a party may seek relief
based on “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).

UNUM does not contest the result of the Memorandum and Order.

It has

represented to the court that it fully responded to the interrogatories that were the subject
of the Motion to Compel—which likely renders the motion to reconsider moot. But
UNUM objects to the inclusion of certain facts in the Memorandum and Order. Thus,
UNUM’s motion is better characterized as a motion asking the court to rewrite its
opinion.

It is up to the court to decide what information it deems relevant and necessary in
making its judgments, or how thoroughly the court discusses the facts in its written
decision. Every fact cited in the Memorandum and Order was filed of record and was
identified and examined by the court in an effort to determine whether the plaintiff’s
discovery requests sought information relevant to the case – particularly as to how the
disputed requests pertained to UNUM’s potential conflict of interest and any deference to

2

be afforded UNUM’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s ERISA claim. Other than ruling
that the defendant must respond to the discovery served, the Memorandum and Order
does not include any ruling on any issue in this case and did not create any prejudice to
UNUM. Thus, the court declines to reconsider, rewrite, or redact its Memorandum and
Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Filing No.
78), is denied in all respects.

Dated this 14th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

3