1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAUREEN STRATTON, Case No.: 20-CV-2037 JLS (NLS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO CONTINUE ERISA TRIAL BRIEFING AND HEARING 14 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AND (2) REQUESTING NORTH AMERICA and GARTNER, 15 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING INC. GROUP INSURANCE PLAN, REGARDING SUPPLEMENTATION 16 Defendants. OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 17 (ECF Nos. 32–35) 18

19 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue ERISA Trial 20 Briefing and Hearing (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 35). Also before the Court is Plaintiff 21 Maureen Stratton’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Briefing and to 22 Include Supplemental Vocational Report Within the Administrative Record or in the 23 Alternative to Strike New Vocational Report from the Administrative Record (“Ex Parte 24 Appl.,” ECF No. 32), Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America’s 25 (“Defendant”) Opposition thereto (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 33), and Plaintiff’s Reply in support 26 thereof (“Reply,” ECF No. 34). 27 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion. The Court 28 VACATES the briefing deadlines set by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes (ECF Nos. 23, 1 28) as well as the hearing on the Parties’ cross-motions for judgment presently scheduled 2 for September 2, 2021. However, rather than set continued deadlines at this time, the Court 3 REQUESTS supplemental briefing on the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. 4 In particular, the Court would like the Parties to address the following issues: 5 1. Was Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiff with the Transferable Skills 6 Analysis dated June 20, 2019 prior to July 3, 2021 a “procedural irregularity” or a “fail[ure] 7 to follow a procedural requirement of ERISA” under Abatie v. Alta Health & Life 8 Insurance Co.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)? 9 2. Assuming so, should the Court (1) permit supplementation of the 10 administrative record or (2) strike the June 20, 2019 Transferable Skills Analysis from the 11 administrative record? 12 3. If the Court determines supplementation of the administrative record is 13 appropriate, why should the Court not remand this matter to the plan administrator for an 14 initial determination? See, e.g., Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Ben. 15 Plan,

, 944 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); Johal v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City 16 of New York,

, 648 (D. Ariz. 2020) (citation omitted). 17 4. What effect, if any, does the stipulation to apply a de novo standard of review 18 (ECF Nos. 13, 15) have on the above questions? 19 The Parties SHALL FILE simultaneous supplemental briefs addressing the above 20 issues and any others they deem relevant to the Court’s consideration of the Ex Parte 21 Application, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length, on or before July 28, 2021. The Parties 22 MAY FILE simultaneous responsive briefs, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, on or 23 before August 4, 2021. Thereafter, the Court will take Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application and 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || the briefing thereon under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 2 || 7.1(d)(1) and will issue a ruling in due course as to how to proceed with this action. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: July 14, 2021 jae L. Lo memeaite- 5 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28