304 F.R.D. 186
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- He, a Cornell employee, sued under ERISA for long-term disability benefits denied by Cigna, which administered Cornell’s group LTD plan.
- He exhausted Cigna’s internal appeals; Cigna denied benefits and upheld the denial on review.
- Parties stipulated that the court will review de novo (no deference to administrator).
- He moved to compel discovery: depositions of three adjudicators, a Rule 30(b)(6) designee on 16 topics, and documents (reserves, employee evaluations, compensation).
- Court considered whether discovery beyond the administrative record is appropriate under Second Circuit law permitting extra-record evidence only for “good cause,” evaluated by conflict of interest and procedural irregularities.
- Court limited discovery to one deposition on procedural administration and production of written evaluations of key Cigna decisionmakers; denied all other discovery and document requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery beyond the administrative record is permissible in a de novo ERISA review | He sought extensive discovery to show conflict/procedural irregularities that would justify expanding the record | Cigna argued limited or no discovery is appropriate because de novo review does not require probing conflicts beyond structural conflict and the record suffices | Court: Extra-record discovery available only for "good cause"; focus limited to evidence that bears on incompleteness of the administrative record (conflict/procedural irregularities) |
| Scope of discovery (depositions and documents) | Sought three individual depositions, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on 16 topics, and wide-ranging documents including reserves and compensation | Argued structural conflict is conceded and much of requested discovery is irrelevant/burdensome | Court: Limited to a single deposition on procedural administration and production of written evaluations of key employees; denied other depositions and document requests |
| Relevance of insurer conflict of interest under de novo review | He asserted conflicts and irregularities should be explored to justify expanding the record | Cigna conceded structural conflict but argued no need for additional discovery into it and that record addresses procedural issues | Court: Structural conflict is conceded; nonstructural conflicts/procedural irregularities may justify extra-record discovery but plaintiff showed insufficient need — limited, targeted discovery granted to test record completeness |
| Proper standard governing discovery scope in ERISA cases | He relied on cases permitting discovery to show conflicts/procedural defects | Cigna relied on Rule 26 and ERISA policy favoring prompt, limited proceedings | Court: Applied Rule 26(b)(1) and (b)(2)(C)(iii) and ERISA policy; rejected a separate "reasonable chance" special test and held ordinary discovery rules apply with consideration of ERISA interests |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Shea v. First Manhattan Co. Thrift Plan & Trust, 55 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1995) (discusses standards of review for ERISA benefit denials)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) (establishes standards for judicial review of ERISA benefit denials)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008) (conflict of interest as a factor in abuse-of-discretion review)
- Durakovic v. Building Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund, 609 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2010) (requires courts consider conflicts and procedural safeguards in ERISA review)
- Paese v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 449 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 2006) (permits consideration of extra-record evidence only for good cause)
- Locher v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 389 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2004) (discusses when to expand administrative record and ERISA discovery limits)
- DeFelice v. American Int’l Life Assurance Co. of N.Y., 112 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1997) (addresses admission of extra-record evidence)
- Zuckerbrod v. Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co., 78 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1996) (recognizes insurer’s structural conflict when it both administers and funds benefits)