1 Kristina N. Holmstrom, #10086 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK 2 & STEWART, P.C. 10801 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 500 3 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: 702-369-6800 4 Fax: 702-369-6888 [email protected] 5 Attorney for Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 ESTATE OF JIM LAMONT IRVING, ) Case No.: 2:25-cv-00304-APG-DJA 9 DECEASED, ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ) DISCOVERY PLAN AND 11 vs. ) SCHEDULING ORDER ) 12 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) (Special Scheduling Review COMPANY, ) Requested) 13 ) Defendant. ) 14 ) 15 Plaintiff, the Estate of Jim Lamont Irving, and Defendant, Metropolitan Life 16 Insurance Company jointly request special scheduling review and submit the following 17 discovery plan and order for this case. 18 I. Rule 26(f) Conference. 19 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Shawanna L. Johnson, 20 counsel for the Plaintiff, and Kristina N. Holmstrom, counsel for MetLife, conferred on 21 May 20 and May 29, 2025. The parties agree that the standard discovery plan is not best 22 suited for this lawsuit, for the reasons set forth below. The parties further certify, pursuant to 23 LR 26-1(b)(7-8), that they have met and conferred regarding the possibility of using alternate 24 dispute-resolution processes. The provisions of LR 26-1(b)(9) do not apply as no jury trial is 25 demanded at this time. The Estate reserves the right to demand a jury trial as the case 26 continues and MetLife reserves the right to object to any demand. 1 II. Nature of Case and Purpose of Special Review. 2 The suit in this matter involves the Estate’s claim for benefits under the Federal 3 Employees Group Life Insurance Program (“FEGLI Program”) established by the Federal 4 Employees Group Life Insurance Act,

et seq. (“FEGLIA”), as a result of the 5 death of Jim Lamont Irving (the “Decedent”). The Estate contends that MetLife erroneously 6 paid the Decedent’s FEGLI benefits to his father, Reverend Irving. 7 FEGLIA provides that “The Office of Personnel . . . may purchase from one or more 8 life insurance companies a policy or policies of group life and accidental death and 9 dismemberment insurance to provide [FEGLI] benefits.”

(a). Once a 10 contract is in place, 11 [t]he provisions of any contract under this chapter which relate to the nature or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect 12 to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any law of any State or political subdivision thereof, or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to 13 group life insurance to the extent that the law or regulation is inconsistent 14 with the contractual provisions. 15

(d)(1). 16 Federal regulations likewise confirm that FEGLI “benefits are payable according to a 17 contract with the company or companies that issue a policy under § 8709 of title 5, United 18 States Code.”

(emphasis added). 19 Section 2.6 of the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Program outlines the 20 “Payment of Claims.” Specifically, 21 (a) [MetLife] shall pay the Insurance in Force (plus applicable interest) of the Insured Person based on receipt of satisfactory written proof. 22 Satisfactory written proof consists of Government Agency or OPM 23 certification of coverage (Section 2.4, Certification of Coverage), and a certified death certificate or other proof deemed satisfactory by the 24 Contractor when a certified death certificate is not available. [MetLife] shall use reasonable diligence to ensure that the proof is satisfactory. 25 [MetLife’s] determination as to the entitlement to payment of Benefits is 26 to be given full force and effect, unless it can be shown that the determination was arbitrary and capricious. 1 MetLife’s decision to pay Reverend Irving is subject to arbitrary and capricious 2 review. See, e.g., Finney v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,

, at *7 (N.D. Ala. 3 Sept. 10, 2024) (“Under the FEGLIA contract, MetLife is vested with discretion in reviewing 4 claims for benefits. . . . So the court can reverse MetLife’s claims determination only if 5 MetLife’s decision . . . was arbitrary and capricious.”); Karzai v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,

Supp. 3d 315, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (MetLife’s decision as to the proper beneficiary is 7 subject to arbitrary and capricious review). This case is thus akin to an administrative 8 proceeding. 9 MetLife’s Position: It is Met Life’s position that no discovery plan and scheduling 10 order is generally required for review of an administrative record. LR 16-1(c)(1). An action 11 for an administrative review usually require that the parties file a briefing schedule. 12 LR 16-1(c). 13 The Estate’s Position: The Estate of Jim Irving is still reviewing its litigation options 14 to determine the right to a full adjudication of this case in line with the Rules of Civil 15 Procedure and Local Rules, and not merely to consider this an Administrative Action. The 16 Estate of Jim Irving does not characterize this case as an Administrative Action, as Met Life 17 is not a government entity and is not subject to treatment as a government or administrative 18 entity under federal law. MetLife is a third party private insurance company in contract with 19 the federal government, and as such, is properly considered a private corporate party subject 20 to the claims and defenses available pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This 21 Court has already contemplated that this is a civil matter, not a matter for administrative 22 review, which is supported by the need to obtain an order from Probate Court to determine 23 the proper procedure for the Estate to assert claims, defenses, and counterclaims regarding its 24 entitlement to payment. The Estate will confer with Met Life when further orders and 25 instructions from the Probate Court. 26 1 III. Proposed Plan. 2 The parties have conferred and agree as follows: 3 The Estate is currently in the process of petitioning the Probate Court for permission and/or 4 instructions on how to handle this matter on behalf of the Estate. The Estate will be seeking 5 clarification on whether the probate matter needs to be converted to an alternative action (i.e., 6 a general administration), and what claims (if any) the Estate has authority to assert in the 7 federal action. This matter will be briefed and filed by June 6, 2025 with service to Met Life 8 to respond in turn. Upon the Probate Court’s decision, the Estate will have further additional 9 details to add to this Report/Discovery Plan. 10 A. Production of the Administrative Record: MetLife will disclose a copy of 11 the FEGLIA administrative record by August 1, 2025. 12 B. Filing of FEGLIA Administrative Record and Briefing of the Merits of 13 the Case: On or before September 5, 2025, MetLife will file the Administrative Record 14 with this Court, the contents of which will be agreed upon by the parties 15 The parties propose that the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment be filed no 16 later than October 3, 2025. Thereafter, the parties will file cross-responses by November 7, 17 2025. No replies will be filed absent leave of Court. 18 IV. Settlement. 19 The parties will discuss settlement after production of the administrative record. 20 DATED: June 2, 2025. 21 By: /s/ Shawanna L. Johnson Shawanna L. Johnson (NV Bar 1279) 22 Law Offices of Shawanna L. Johnson, Esq. 3311 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 144 23 Las Vegas, NV 89146 24 Telephone: (702) 755-6959 Fax: (702) 294-2229 25 [email protected] 26 Attorney for Estate of Jim Irving 1 DATED: June 2, 2025. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 2 STEWART, P.C. 3 By: /s/ Kristina N. Holmstrom 4 Kristina N. Holmstrom (NV Bar 10086) 10801 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 500 5 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: 702-369-6800 6 Fax: 702-369-6888 7 kristina.holmstrom @ ogletree.com 8 Attorneys for Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 9 10 11 IT ISSO ORDERED: Dated thiy 72" day of August 2025. 13 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER (Special Scheduling Review Requested)