Boyd et al v. Sysco Corporation et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting in part 27 Motion to Compel; denying 28 Motion to Deem Requests Admitted; denying as moot 32 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 11/10/2014. (hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Wayne Boyd and Whitfield R. Boyd,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Sysco Corporation, Sysco Corporation
)
Group Benefit Plan, and United Behavioral )
Health,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00599-RBH-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiffs Wayne Boyd and Whitfield Boyd seek benefits pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ECF No. 1. This
matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, ECF No. 27, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to
have Requests for Admissions deemed admitted, ECF No. 28. Defendants filed Responses in
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions, ECF No. 30, 31, and Plaintiffs filed a Reply, ECF No. 34.
This matter is also before the court on Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 32.
Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order. ECF No.
35. These Motions were referred to the undersigned on September 19, 2014, and September 23,
2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. ECF Nos. 29, 33. Having considered the parties’ briefs and
related filings, the court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel in part, denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to
have Requests for Admissions deemed admitted, and denies Defendants’ Motion for a Protective
Order.
I.

Background

1

Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes a claim for unpaid health benefits and related relief
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and a claim for penalties provided by 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)
for failure to provide documents when requested in November of 2012. ECF No. 1. After
Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint, see ECF No. 5, the court entered a Specialized Case
Management Order, ECF No. 6, on April 23, 2013. There, the court instructed Defendants to
produce: “(a) the governing plan document; (b) the summary plan description; and (c) the
administrative record relevant to the particular claim at issue.” Id. at 1. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed
a Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 15, and requested the court allow them to serve written
discovery and conduct a 30(b)(6) deposition on the following issues:
(1) Defendants’ compilation of the record, including its now-conceded
incompleteness; (2) The Plan document, and why it was not produced as ordered
by this Court prior to Plaintiffs’ insisting that such a document must exist; (3)
Any claims management guidelines applicable to or considered by any of the
Defendants; (4) The facts behind other health claims for which UBH provided
claims processing services; (5) The failure to respond to the request for
documents made in November 2012, for which a statutory penalty applies.
Plaintiffs requested discovery alleging that Defendants had initially produced an incomplete
administrative record. ECF No. 15-1 at 5-6. Plaintiffs further alleged the documents Defendants
produced on June 7, 2013, pursuant to this Court’s Specialized Case Management Order were
also incomplete. Id. at 6. Specifically, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants omitted a telephone
communication, internal communications, the Affidavit of Wayne Boyd, and the governing plan
document from their production. Id. at 6-8. Additionally, Plaintiffs requested leave to serve
Requests for Admissions and leave to be allowed written discovery and a 30(b)(6) deposition
concerning conflict of interest or bias. Id. at 10. Over Defendants’ objection and assertion that
the court must only consider the administrative record, see ECF No. 16, the court granted
Plaintiffs’ Motion in part and allowed limited discovery. ECF No. 19.

2

In its Order, the court allowed Plaintiffs leave to serve one interrogatory requesting an
explanation of the reason why the plan document was not originally produced. See id. at 6.
Additionally, the court allowed Plaintiffs leave to serve requests for production regarding a
complete copy of the services agreement and compensation agreement, the entire administrative
record; the plan document, if not already produced, and claims management guidelines that were
relied upon in making the benefit determination or which constitute a statement of policy or
guidance with respect to the plan concerning the denied treatment option or benefit for the
claimant’s diagnosis, without regard to whether such advice or statement was relied upon in
making the benefit determination. Id. at 5-6. Finally, the court allowed Plaintiffs to serve up to
five requests for admissions “regarding and limited to the failure to respond to the request for
documents made in November 2012, for which a statutory penalty may apply as to the second
cause of action.” Id. at 6. The court instructed the parties to complete discovery by September 1,
2014. Id.
II.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
a. Interrogatory

In their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants respond or
more fully respond to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory. ECF No. 27-1 at 1-3. Defendants maintain that
they answered the single interrogatory permitted by the court but argue that Plaintiffs’
interrogatory exceeds the scope of permissible inquiry. ECF No. 30 at 2-3.
In its July 3, 2014 Order, the court allowed Plaintiffs to serve “one interrogatory
requesting an explanation of the reason why the plan document was not originally produced.
This discovery is pertinent to the second cause of action under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c).” ECF
No. 19 at 6. Accordingly, Plaintiffs served the following interrogatory on Defendants:

3

Describe in detail, including each and every fact (whether an act of omission or
commission), person involved, and pertinent dates the reason(s) Defendants failed
to respond to the request on November 19, 2012 for “a full copy of the
administrative record . . . includ[ing] all documentation or other information in
the possession of the company relevant to the claim, including specifically any
information that was not used, not considered, or rejected.”
ECF No. 27-3 at 2. Defendants responded, verbatim:
Defendants object that this interrogatory seeks information that is outside the
scope of, and is not permitted by, the Court’s order of July 3, 2014. Without
waiving this objection UBH responds with the following information, about
which the order allowed an interrogatory to be propounded: At the time the
administrative record was compiled, defense counsel did not notice the Sysco
Corporation Group Benefit Plan wrap document was not included in the plan
documents UBH had supplied. Once plaintiff’s counsel pointed out the omission,
the document was obtained from Sysco and the administrative record was
promptly supplemented.
Id. at 2-3.
Defendants failed to produce the Sysco plan documentation in response to a November
19, 2012 request and later failed to produce the Sysco Corporation group Benefit Plan wrap
document in response to this court’s April 23, 2013 Order. Defendants interpreted the July 19,
2014 court Order to allow an interrogatory “to an explanation of why the plan document was not
produced as ‘ordered by this Court,’” in the April 23, 2013 specialized case management order,
ECF No. 6. ECF No. 30-1 at 3. However, the undersigned disagrees with Defendants’
interpretation. The term “originally produced” from the court’s July 3, 2014 order references the
November 19, 2012 request or the first time Plaintiffs requested Defendants produce “all
documentation or other information in the possession of the company relevant to the claim,
including specifically any information that was not used, not considered, or rejected.”
Defendants’ failure to produce these documents during the claims phase gives rise to Plaintiffs’
second cause of action—hence the reason the court allowed Plaintiffs to serve limited discovery.
See ECF No. 19 at 6 n.4.
4

Based on the undersigned’s interpretation of the court’s Order, Defendants have failed to
respond fully to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. Therefore, Defendants are instructed to respond
completely to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory and specifically include person(s) involved in compiling
the administrative record during the claims phase, pertinent dates of the compilation of the
administrative record during the claims phase, reason(s) Defendants failed to respond to the
request on November 19, 2012, and other pertinent details of the compilation process during
the claims phase. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, to the extent it concerns Plaintiffs’
interrogatory, is granted.
b. Requests for Production
Plaintiffs request an order compelling Defendants produce the entire administrative
record, or respond to Request for Production Number 3. ECF No. 27-1 at 3-4. Additionally,
Plaintiffs request the court order Defendants to produce claims management guidelines, or
respond to Request for Production Number 5. Id. at 4-6. Defendants maintain that a
supplemented administrative record was produced in its entirety on September 11, 2014. ECF
No. 30 at 3, 30-1 at 5. Therefore, Defendants maintain that they have adequately responded to
Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Id. In Reply, Plaintiffs maintain there is no way to know whether
Defendants have finally produced everything. ECF No. 34 at 4. Further, Plaintiffs indicate that
Defendants offer no explanation for their withholding these documents and falsely representing
that everything had previously been produced. Id.
Based on Defendants’ assertions to this tribunal, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Defendants respond to production requests is now moot. Price v. Town of Atl.
Beach, No. 4:12-cv-02329-MGL, 2013 WL 2156404, at *1 (D.S.C. May 17, 2013) (finding that
a parties’ receipt of responses to the discovery requests moots the issue complained of in the

5

motion to compel); Crosby v. Ozmint, No. 1:12-cv-440-MGL, 2013 WL 5306052, at *6 (D.S.C.
Sept. 18, 2013) (“[It] appears that Plaintiff’s motion is, in essence, a motion to compel, which is
now moot in light of Defendants’ undisputed assertion that they have since served Plaintiff with
responses.”). The undersigned was tasked with resolving Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and
ensuring Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ limited discovery requests. The undersigned can
only rely on Defendants’ representations to this court. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that as
of the date of this order, Defendants have produced the entire administrative record and all
requested management guidelines. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel as it pertains to the
Requests for Production, ECF No. 27, is denied as moot.
III.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to have Requests for Admissions Deemed Admitted

Pursuant to Rules 36(a)(3) and 36(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
move for an order of the court declaring Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission deemed admitted for
the purposes of this case. ECF No. 28. Specifically, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants’
Responses to their First Set of Requests for Admissions, fail to comply with the mandates of
Rule 36. ECF No. 28-1 at 3-4. Therefore, Plaintiffs maintain that “[h]aving failed, in their only
timely response, to meet the Rule’s requirement, Defendants should be deemed to have admitted
the requests.” Id. at 4.
Rule 36(a), in its entirety, provides:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail
why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly
respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party
qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part
admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of
knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party
states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can
readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.

6

Defendants’ responses were due on August 18, 2014. On August 18, 2014, Defendants
responded to four Requests to Admit by maintaining: “Defendants investigation is continuing,
therefore, Defendants are unable to admit or deny at this time.” See ECF No. 30-1 at 6-7.
Technically, Defendants’ August 18, 2014 responses did not comply with the exact language of
Rule 36(a), particularly the final sentence stating that the “answering party may assert lack of
knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it
has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is
insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” However, Rule 36(a)(6) allows a party to amend its
answer by court order. Furthermore, Rule 36(b) allows a party, upon motion, to withdraw an
admission or amend an admission by court order.
Defendants finalized their investigation and amended their responses to Plaintiffs’
Requests to Admit eight days after their deadline. Pursuant to Rule 36(a)(6), the undersigned
finds that Defendants are entitled to amend their August 18, 2014 responses with their
supplemental responses served on August 26, 2014. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that the
eight-day delay in finalizing their investigation will not prejudice Plaintiffs in this action. See
Nat’l Specialty Ins. Co. v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-00826-JMC, 2011 WL
1630948, at *4 (D.S.C. Apr. 29, 2011). Accordingly, the undersigned denies Plaintiffs’ Motion
to have Requests for Admissions Deemed Admitted, ECF No. 28.
IV.

Costs

Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs seek an award of
costs and seek leave to file an affidavit of counsel supporting this request. ECF No. 27-1 at 6.
Rule 37 (a)(5)(A) provides:
If the motion is granted--or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided
after the motion was filed--the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard,
7

require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or
attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses
incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. But the court must not
order this payment if:
(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the
disclosure or discovery without court action;
(ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially
justified; or
(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Here, the undersigned granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel to the extent it concerns
Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. Concerning the interrogatory at issue, the undersigned finds that
Defendants’ interpretation of the court’s July 3, 2014 order was reasonable. The undersigned
notes that Defendants fully responded to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Numbers 3 and 5
two days after Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Compel. However, though Plaintiffs indicate that
they consulted with Defendants prior to filing their Motion to Compel, see ECF No. 27 at 2,
Plaintiffs do not detail their attempts to resolve this discovery dispute in good faith prior to filing
this Motion as required under Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(i) given Defendants’ assertion that they were in
the process of compiling the requested documents. Accordingly, the undersigned denies
Plaintiffs request for costs and fees incurred in filing the Motion to Compel, ECF No. 27.

8

V.

Conclusion

The undersigned grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, ECF No. 27, in part. Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel concerning the interrogatory is granted and Defendants are instructed to
respond completely to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel concerning
Requests for Production 3 and 5 is denied as moot. Plaintiffs’ Motion to have Requests to Admit
deemed admitted, ECF No. 28, is denied. Based on the undersigned’s resolution of Plaintiffs’
Motions, Defendants’ pending Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 32, is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 10, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

9