Moore v. Anthem Life Insurance Company

Filing 11

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/1/12. (SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DEADLINES)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LISA MOORE,
Plaintiff
v.
ANTHEM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-0359
Judge Sharp/Brown

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01(d)(2), the following Initial
Case Management Plan is adopted.
1.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a meeting was

held on July 24, 2012, via telephone conference, and was attended
by Jeremy L. Bordelon for Plaintiff, and Cavender C. Kimble for the
Defendant.
2.

Service of process. The parties agree that Defendant

has been properly served.
3.

Jurisdiction is not disputed. The Court has “federal

question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C.
§ 1132(e) (ERISA § 502(e)).
4.

Initial Disclosures. Defendant asserts that this

case is excluded from the initial disclosure requirements of Rule
26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that
this is “an action for review on an administrative record.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E)(i). “Plaintiff disputes that an ERISA action is
exempt from initial disclosures, as it is not truly a review of an

administrative agency decision. See Crume v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. 388 F.Supp.2d 1342 (M.D. Fla., 2005); Hamma v. Intel Corp.,
2008

U.S.

Dist.

LEXIS

22670

(E.D.

Cal.

March

4,

2008).”

Nonetheless, the parties agree that the service of the ERISA
administrative record by the Defendant on the Plaintiff will
satisfy the requirements of service of initial disclosures as
required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant shall file and serve the Administrative Record in this
case in accordance with the schedule set forth in paragraph 4.C
below.
5.

Discovery

Plan.

As

limited

below,

the

Parties

jointly propose to the court the following discovery plan:
A.

No party has served discovery at this time.

B.

Any discovery taken will be limited by the fact

that this is an action seeking the recovery of ERISA benefits under
29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), and as such the Court’s review is
limited to a review of the administrative record before the claim
decision maker at the time the decision to deny benefits was made.
Defendant contends that discovery is permitted only after an
initial

showing

procedural

demonstrating

irregularity.

the

Defendant

existence
further

of

bias

contends

or

some

that

no

discovery is needed or appropriate. Plaintiff acknowledges that the
record is closed with respect to additional evidence of disability
but argues that Sixth Circuit precedent leaves open the possibility

2

of discovery and the court’s consideration of evidence of bias or
violation of due process on the part of the decision-maker.
Moreover, Plaintiff points out that there is always the possibility
that the parties will disagree as to what constitutes the ERISA
administrative record. To address these concerns, the Parties
propose the following schedule with respect to discovery.
C.

Defendant shall file the Administrative Record

with Court and serve a copy of same on Plaintiff no later than
August 31, 2012.

Should Plaintiff have any objection to the

content of the filed Administrative Record, such written objection
shall be filed on or before September 28, 2012.
D.

The

Parties

will

endeavor

to

resolve

any

discovery disputes between themselves, prior to involving the
Court.
E.

Should Plaintiff seek to take any limited

discovery as may be allowed in an ERISA action, the Plaintiff shall
serve such proposed discovery on or before September 28, 2012.
Plaintiff's service of discovery shall not be considered a waiver
by Defendant of the propriety of or acceptance of discovery, either
generally or as to specific discovery requests.
F.

The Defendant shall (i) respond to the proposed

discovery, or (ii) notify Plaintiff in writing that Plaintiff is
not entitled to conduct the proposed discovery or that all or a
portion

of

the

proposed

discovery
3

is

outside

the

bounds

of

discovery permitted in a claim seeking the recovery of an ERISA
benefit by no later than October 29, 2012.
G.

Should the Parties be unable to agree as to any

proposed discovery, Plaintiff shall file a motion requesting leave
to serve the proposed discovery with the Court by no later than
November 9, 2012.
H.

Nothing

in

this

discovery

plan

will

be

considered as a concession from or waiver by the Defendant that
discovery is allowable in an ERISA benefits claim.
6.

Other Items.
A.

The Parties do not request a conference with

the Court before entry of the scheduling order.
B.

The Parties do not anticipate any need to amend

the pleadings or to join additional parties. In the event that
joinder or amendment is necessary, Plaintiff should be allowed
until August 31, 2012, to join additional parties and to amend the
pleadings; Defendant should be allowed until September 28, 2012, to
join additional parties and to amend the pleadings.
C.

This is a claim for ERISA benefits under 29

U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B), and will thus ultimately be decided on the
Parties’ respective motions for judgment, pursuant to Wilkins v.
Baptist Healthcare, 150 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 1998).

All Wilkins

motions for judgment should be filed by December 14, 2012, or if
any motions concerning discovery remains pending with the Court on
4

that date, within 60 days after resolution of discovery motions and
the close of discovery.

Responses to motions for judgment are due

within 28 days of said motions being filed, or by January 13, 2013,
whichever date occurs first. Reply briefs, if any, limited to five
pages, will be filed within 14 days of any response. If dispositive
motions are filed early, the response and reply dates are moved up
accordingly.
D.
time.

Settlement possibilities are unknown at this

The parties intend to explore settlement negotiations in

good faith.
E.

A trial is not permitted in this civil action

under ERISA. Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d
609, 617-20 (6th Cir. 1998). Therefore, final lists of witnesses
and exhibits under Rule 26(a)(3) are not necessary in a claim for
ERISA benefits, as the case will be decided on cross-motions for
summary judgment.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

5