Jones et al v. Allen, et al
Filing
195
OPINION and ORDER denying 133 Motion for Protective Order; denying without prejudice 140 Sealed Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 9/5/2014. (agm1) Modified text on 9/5/2014 (agm1).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Craig S. Jones, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 2:11-cv-380
Kerry A. Allen, Plan
Administrator, et al.,
JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
Magistrate Judge Kemp
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This ERISA case is before the Court to resolve PNC
Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Protective Order Regarding
Depositions on Conflicts Issues (Doc. 133), Plaintiffs’ Response
and Cross Motion to Compel (Doc. 140), Defendants’ Reply in
support of their motion for a protective order (Doc. 150-1), and
Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of their motion to compel (Doc.
153).
The factual background for this motion is set forth in the
Court’s previous orders.
In brief, this is a case involving
review of an administrative decision denying a claim for ERISA
benefits.
While ERISA cases are typically decided based solely
on the administrative record, here the Court has permitted
limited discovery beyond the record.
On March 25, 2014, the
Court ruled that Plaintiffs were entitled to conflict of interest
discovery.
(Doc. 166 at 4).
Shortly thereafter, on March 31,
2014, the Court resolved two motions for protective orders, one
of which involved the depositions of three individuals.
168 at 3).
(Doc.
The Court denied the motion for a protective order as
to the depositions of three individuals, holding that the
depositions could go forward but should be limited to the scope
authorized by the Court’s orders.
In the first motion addressed in this Order, PNC Defendants
seek a protective order regarding the deposition of David
Williams, PNC’s Mergers & Acquisitions Manager.
Defendants
acknowledge that discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ retaliation
claim is ripe and that Plaintiffs intend to question Mr. Williams
on issues related to Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim.
Defendants
argue, however, that it would be more practical to hold Mr.
Williams’ deposition at a time when the Court has provided
clarity about the areas of discovery that Plaintiffs are
permitted to pursue now.
Defendants also argue, as they did in
their previous motion for a protective order, that depositions
regarding conflicts issues are inappropriate when relevant
information is attainable through well-crafted written discovery.
The Court’s March 31, 2014 Order provided some guidance to the
parties as to the scope of conflicts discovery, and also rejected
Defendants’ argument that the parties are constrained to written
discovery for purposes of conflicts issues.
The Court has since
provided additional clarification of the scope of conflicts
discovery during the course of other depositions.
Accordingly,
the Court does not find good cause to enter a protective order
regarding the deposition of Mr. Williams.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court denies PNC
Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Protective Order Regarding
Depositions on Conflicts Issues (Doc. 133).
Mr. Williams shall go forward.
The deposition of
However the scope of the
deposition shall be limited to the discovery that the Court has
authorized.
In light of the resolution of the motion for a
protective order, Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion to Compel (Doc. 140)
is denied without prejudice.
Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is
filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by a District Judge.
2
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Eastern Division Order No. 14–01, pt.
IV(C)(3)(a).
The motion must specifically designate the order or
part in question and the basis for any objection.
Responses to
objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and
replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter.
The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set
aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect even if a motion for
reconsideration has been filed unless it is stayed by either the
Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?