301 F.R.D. 431
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege promises by ASIC executives that contributions to ASIC’s SEP for 2010 and through June 30, 2011 would be paid into employee accounts; some plaintiffs were later laid off after Mierosemi acquired ASIC on July 5, 2011.
- Defendants dispute timing and substance of alleged promises and assert thirteen Plaintiffs signed releases addressing (at least some) SEP claims.
- Plaintiffs sued under multiple theories including ERISA claims; most claims were dismissed and Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
- On February 4, 2014, Defendants served 134 document requests tailored to the SEP allegations and voluntariness of releases; Plaintiffs objected on ERISA-limited discovery and burden/harassment grounds.
- Parties met and conferred but could not resolve disputes; Defendants moved to compel and sought Rule 37 sanctions for unjustified objections.
- The magistrate judge considered whether ERISA limits discovery here (administrative record vs. broader discovery for § 1132(a)(3) claims), whether the requests were unduly burdensome, and whether sanctions were warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery under ERISA | Discovery should be limited to the administrative record; Plaintiffs note authorities limiting extra-record discovery (and stress most cases involve plaintiff seeking discovery). | Discovery beyond the administrative record is permissible for § 1132(a)(3) equitable claims and is needed here to defend against breach/fiduciary allegations. | Court: Discovery allowed. §1132(a)(3) claims may require traditional discovery when no administrative record exists for the dispute. |
| Whether defendants (as plan fiduciaries/administrators) can seek extra-record discovery | Plaintiffs argue precedent limits extra-record discovery to plaintiffs and that defendants should be constrained. | Defendants say no authority supports that limitation and deny any special restriction. | Court: Plaintiffs offered no authority for limiting defendants; allowed defendants to obtain the requested documents. |
| Whether prior administrative review that assumed Plaintiffs’ factual assertions bars defendant discovery | Plaintiffs contend the administrator’s favorable treatment of their allegations during review precludes defendants from re-litigating those facts in discovery. | Defendants argue timely administrative review that assumed facts does not immunize those facts from discovery. | Court: Not analogous to “deemed denial” cases; administrator gave timely review; discovery not barred. |
| Sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 | Plaintiffs claim their objections were substantially justified given unsettled law on ERISA discovery—thus sanctions are inappropriate. | Defendants assert objections were not substantially justified and seek fees. | Court: Denied sanctions. Given unsettled authority and limited on-point precedent, Plaintiffs’ objections were substantially justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Players Ret. Plan, 410 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.) (discussing deferential review in certain ERISA benefit claims)
- Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir.) (noting limits on extra-record evidence in ERISA benefit reviews)
- Jebian v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Employee Ben. Organization Income Protection Plan, 349 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.) (describing the doctrine and consequences of deemed denials)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (discovery may be denied when sought to harass, embarrass, or delay)
- Sconiers v. First UNUM Life Ins. Co., 830 F.Supp.2d 772 (N.D. Cal.) (permitting discovery in ERISA equitable-relief action to explore misrepresentation)
- Jensen v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc., 520 F.Supp.2d 1349 (D. Wyo.) (explaining § 502(a)(3) actions revert to traditional discovery where no administrative record controls)