Long v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Filing 10

ORDER re 9 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. See Order for deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 8/4/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5

Julie A. Mersch, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 004695
LAW OFFICE OF JULIE A. MERSCH
701 S.7th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff Louis Long

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

LOUIS LONG,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, as Claims
)
Administrator for the Group Long Term
)
Disability Plan for TARGET Corp.; DOES I )
through V; and ROE CORPORATIONS I
)
through V, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-01297-JAD-GWF
DISCOVERY PLAN AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Special Scheduling Review
Requested)

16
17

Plaintiff LOUIS LONG and Defendant HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT

18

INSURANCE COMPANY (“HARTFORD”) jointly request special scheduling review and

19

submit the following discovery plan and order for this case.

20

I.

Rule 26(f) Conference.

21

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a telephonic conference was held on July 10,

22

2017 between Julie A. Mersch, counsel for the plaintiff, and Kristina Holmstrom, counsel for

23

HARTFORD. The parties agree that the standard discovery plan is not best suited for this

24

lawsuit, for the reasons set forth below. The parties further certify, pursuant to LR 26-1(b)(7-

25

8), that they have met and conferred regarding the possibility of using alternate dispute-

26

resolution processes and alternate forms of case disposition including consent to trial by a

DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER (Special Scheduling Review Requested)

1

1

magistrate judge and the use of the Short Trial Program. The provisions of LR 26-1(b)(9) do

2

not apply as no jury trial is demanded in this matter.

3

II.

Nature of Case and Purpose of Special Review.

4

This claim involves payment of long-term disability benefits under a group insurance

5

plan administered by LONG’s employer, Target Corp. (Plan Administrator) for the benefit of

6

its employees. Target delegated the administration of claims under the plan to Defendant

7

HARTFORD (Claims Administrator). The Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a claim under the

8

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”),

9

seeking 1) a declaratory judgment for the construction and applicability of the long-term

10

disability insurance policy offset provision and payment of benefits withheld as a result of

11

application of the offset provision resulting in reduced benefits; and 2) reinstatement of long-

12

term disability benefits terminated by HARTFORD and payment of past benefits. This action

13

is brought pursuant to § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 (a)(1)(B)). Discovery

14

may be limited to the administrative record for Plaintiff’s administrative claim and appeal.

15

The administrative record consists of the information that was before Defendant at the time

16

of its final decision, which includes, inter alia, Plaintiff’s medical records, Plaintiff’s

17

arguments for the payment of benefits, the Plan Administrator’s and Claim Administrator’s

18

decisions, and the long-term disability plan documents.

19

No discovery plan and scheduling order is generally required for review of an

20

administrative record. LR 16-1(c)(1). An action for an administrative review usually requires

21

that the parties file a briefing schedule. LR 16-1(c). Accordingly, the parties jointly request

22

that this Court review and adopt the proposed non-standard discovery and case schedule set

23

forth below:

24

III.

Proposed Plan

25

The parties have conferred and agree as follows:

26

A.

Production of the Administrative Record: HARTFORD will disclose a

DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER (Special Scheduling Review Requested)

2

1
2

copy of the ERISA administrative record by Monday, August 7, 2017.
B.

Meet and Confer Period: LONG intends to conduct discovery in this matter.

3

Accordingly, LONG will serve HARTFORD by Monday, August 21, 2017 with written

4

discovery and will identify any other form of discovery, such as deposition discovery, he

5

would like to conduct. The parties will then meet and confer with each other to (1) identify

6

areas of agreement about permissible ERISA discovery; (2) narrow the discovery requests, if

7

possible, to gain agreement about permissible ERISA discovery and narrow areas of dispute

8

about permissible areas of ERISA discovery. Defendant’s responses to written discovery

9

will be due by Monday, September 25, 2017.

10

C.

Filing of Administrative Record/Briefing re: ERISA Discovery Disputes:

11

To the extent that, after the meet and confer period, the parties disagree as to the

12

permissible scope of discovery and type of discovery, on or before Monday, October 2,

13

2017, the parties will simultaneously brief the Court and request a ruling on any remaining

14

disputes, after Defendant has responded to written discovery. Each party will set forth its

15

position in no more than 10 pages. If further discovery is permitted, the Court may set a

16

reasonable time deadline for completion of discovery at that time. If no discovery briefs are

17

filed, on or before Monday, October 16, 2017, Defendants will file a joint administrative

18

record with this Court, the contents of which will be agreed upon by the parties.

19

D.

Briefing Schedule for the Merits of the Case: If a joint administrative

20

record is timely filed and simultaneous motions are not filed under Paragraph III.C., above,

21

Plaintiff’s Rule 52 and/or Rule 56 Motion shall be filed by Monday, November 6, 2017.

22

Defendant’s response will be due on Friday, December 15, 2017, and Plaintiff’s reply

23

memoranda will be due Friday, January 12, 2018.

24

IV.

25

On April 7, 2017, the parties attempted to mediate the case before (Ret.) Magistrate

26

Settlement.

Hon. Lawrence Leavitt. The mediation was not successful. Therefore, the parties anticipate

DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER (Special Scheduling Review Requested)

3

1
2

that this case will need to be decided on the merits.
DATED: August 3, 2017

LAW OFFICE OF JULIE A. MERSCH

3
By:
4
5
6

/s/ Julie A. Mersch
JULIE A. MERSCH
[e-mail]
Nevada Bar No.: 004695
701 S. 7th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorney for Plaintiff LOUIS LONG

7
8

DATED: August 3, 2017

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE

9
By:
10
11
12

/s/ Kristina N. Holmstrom
KRISTINA N. HOLMSTROM
[e-mail]
Nevada Bar No. 10086
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Ste. 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
Attorneys for Defendant HARTFORD

13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED:
15
Dated this

4th

_ day of August, 2017.

16
17
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER (Special Scheduling Review Requested)

4