Arrabito v. First Unum Life Insurance Company
1:24-cv-05054
S.D.N.Y.May 15, 2025Background
- This is an ERISA action concerning the denial of a disability insurance claim by First Unum Life Insurance Company (Unum), involving Plaintiff Arrabito.
- The procedural posture involves a discovery dispute, with both parties seeking judicial intervention as required by local rules and the court’s individual practices.
- Defendants initially withheld certain discovery on confidentiality grounds but later provided additional information after a protective order was entered.
- Arrabito challenges the sufficiency of Defendants’ discovery responses, specifically seeking further interrogatory answers, documents, and depositions.
- The key disputes revolve around discovery tailored to explore Unum’s potential conflict of interest and alleged bias in claims administration.
- The parties agree discovery beyond the administrative record is generally limited in ERISA cases, and disagree on whether Arrabito has made the proper legal showing to expand discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Unum must provide "batting average" statistics (Interrogatory No. 6) on medical reviewers | Such data is probative of bias and conflict of interest, especially as to Dr. Greenstein, and is endorsed by relevant case law for conflict discovery | Information is not relevant, is overbroad, contains protected health data, and prior courts have found such statistics do not prove bias without full claim context | Pending |
| Whether Unum must produce emails with specified recovery terms (RFP No. 4) | Emails are limited and relevant to show possible financial bias as to conflict of interest | The request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, captures irrelevant/cumulative data, and similar requests were rejected by courts as lacking nexus to claim decision-making | Pending |
| Whether depositions of Katy Dixon and Dr. Greenstein should proceed | Their testimony is directly relevant to the conflict of interest and the denial of Arrabito’s claim | Individuals are not parties; discovery into claim administration merits is not permitted; any conflict inquiry should be through the corporation, and Rule 30(b)(6) was offered but not pursued | Pending |
| Whether the scope of ERISA discovery should expand beyond the administrative record | Conflict of interest justifies additional discovery under Supreme Court guidance and relevant precedent | Strict standards in the Second Circuit require a strong factual basis for expansion; Arrabito has not shown the requisite facts of actual conflict affecting the claim decision | Pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Metlife v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008) (Supreme Court recognized discovery into insurer conflict of interest may be appropriate in ERISA cases)
- Muller v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 341 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2003) (Review in ERISA cases is limited to the administrative record absent a showing of good cause)
- Locher v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 389 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2004) (Discovery is permitted beyond the record in ERISA cases only upon a showing of good cause)
- Burgio v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of America, 254 F.R.D. 219 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (Conflict of interest discovery allowed in ERISA claims)