Chacko v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RUBY CHACKO, No. 2:19-cv-1837 JAM DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN NO. 3, 16 Defendant.

18 On August 7, 2020, this matter came before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1) for hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 41.) Attorney Michelle Roberts appeared via Zoom on behalf of plaintiff and attorney Stacey Campbell appeared via Zoom on behalf of defendant. Oral argument was heard and plaintiff’s motion was taken under submission.

23 This matter was last before the undersigned on March 13, 2020, for hearing of a motion to compel brought by plaintiff. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff’s motion sought to compel discovery related to: (1) the completeness of the Administrative Record; (2) conflict-of-interest discovery concerning the relationship between the Plan and its third-party administrator, Sedgwick; and (3) conflict of interest discovery concerning a vendor and physician retained by Segdwick to evaluate plaintiff’s claim. On March 16, 2020, the undersigned issued an order granting the motion to compel as to discovery related to the completeness of the record and denying the motion in all other respects. (ECF No. 29.)

3 On March 26, 2020, plaintiff sought reconsideration before the assigned District Judge.

4 (ECF No. 32.) On April 27, 2020, the assigned District Judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to the structural conflict-of-interest discovery and granting reconsideration “as to discovery of a potential financial conflict[.]” (ECF No. 37 at 8.) On July 31, 2020, plaintiff filed the current pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 41.)

8 Plaintiff argues that the assigned District Judge’s order foreclosed all of defendant’s objections. (JS (ECF No. 42) at 15.) Accordingly, plaintiff seeks an order not only compelling discovery but sanctioning defendant. (Id. at 1, 18.) Defendant argues that the assigned District Judge’s order did not foreclose the asserted objections. (Id. at 21.)

12 As to plaintiff’s request for sanctions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37 “contains a mandatory requirement for the allowance of expenses and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party when the motion is either granted or denied.” H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 536 F.2d 1115, 1124 (6th Cir. 1976). However, “[a] court must not order expenses 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.’”

19 Kannaday v. Ball, 292 F.R.D. 640, 651 (D. Kan. 2013).

20 Here, although the assigned District Judge’s order did grant reconsideration in part as to a category of discovery, the order did not order defendant to respond to specific discovery requests.

22 In this regard, the undersigned finds that defendant’s objections were substantially justified.

23 Accordingly, the undersigned will not award plaintiff sanctions.

24 However, as to the discovery at issue, it appears to the undersigned that the assigned District Judge’s April 27, 2020 order, clearly contemplated plaintiff conducting discovery of the type at issue here. See ECF No. 37 at 7 (“If the plaintiff had not been permitted to engage in such discovery, he would not have been able to meet the evidentiary burden concerning a conflict of //// wOAOe 2 LUV VEO EAINT MMU oi PO OPE Ie POY VI | interest at the summary judgment stage. It is for that reason that courts within this circuit have | allowed discovery of potential IPC’s financial conflicts.”).

3 Moreover, defendant’s arguments in support of its objections are sparse and vague.

4 | Defendant asserts that certain discovery is “unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs | of this case,” without providing any specificity as to the contours of that burden. (JS (ECF No. | 42) at 22.) There’s no discussion of: (1) how burdensome; (2) a specific discovery item is. And | at the August 7, 2020 hearing, defense counsel’s argument seriously called into question the || extent to which defendant even inquired as whether responsive documents existed, let alone how | burdensome it would be, if at all, to produce those documents.

10 Defendant also argues that the information sought should be subject to a protective order.

11 | (US (ECF No. 42) at 25.) Again, however, defendant’s argument is vague and conclusory.

12 | Moreover, if defendant has discovery that should be produced subject to a protective order, | defendant should first seek a stipulation from plaintiff. If the parties are unable to agree on a | stipulated protective order, defendant may then seek the court’s intervention.

15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's July 31, 2020 motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 41) is granted; 17 2. Defendant shall produce responsive discovery within twenty-one days; and 18 3. Plaintiff's July 31, 2020 request for sanctions is denied.

19 | Dated: August 11, 2020 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.civil\chacko 1 837.cah.080720