Whether the interrogatories put forwarded are Discoverable which are related to the dispute and not asked at trial?

Ms. Kathleen M. Hackett brought suit in this Court against Standard Insurance Company for claiming that Standard has wrongfully denied her claim for long term disability benefits. Both the parties moved for the summary judgment. District Court held that although Standard operated under a conflict of interest, which caused a serious breach of fiduciary duty. According to District Court Standard did not abuse its discretion in denial of Hackett’s claim. Hackett appealed against order of the District Court. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision and remanded the matter to District Court for reconsideration in the light of Glenn.   

                                                                                                   

The Court may order discovery of any fact relevant to the dispute. Relevant information need not to be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The appropriate standard of review is a deferential “combination of all factors”

The de novo is a proper standard of review in case in which denial of benefits covered by ERISA. In Glenn V. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Supreme Court held that a plan administrator who evaluate and pays claims operate under a conflict of interest. The Court found that such dual role was subject to a conflict of interest and must weight the conflict as a factor in determining an abuse of discretion. The Court did not adopt a rule whereby the reviewing Court must always apply a less deferential standard of review in cases in which conflict of interest existed.  

Instead of that Court adopted a combination of factors as methods of review.  The benefits denial cases takes into account "several different, often case - specific, factors reaching a result by weighing.  The Court also noted that a conflict should prove less important where the administrator has taken active steps to reduce bias and to promote accuracy for claim decision.

 Whether Glenn changed the law of discovery in ERISA cases

Both parties agreed with the application of Glenn and conflict of interest was existed in present case. But they were disagreed as to whether Glenn changed the laws of discovery in an ERISA benefits denial cases. Hackett’s disability attorney argued that Glenn changed the landscape for ERISA discovery. On other hand Standard argued that Glenn did not created a new rule relating to ERISA discovery. Courts were divided into two parts, one who allowed varying degree of discovery and other Courts, who did not allow additional discovery after Glenn.

In the present case, the Court believed Glenn permitted limited discovery. Before Glenn, the issue of interest did not give the same importance as it did post Glenn. So, claimant did not get a chance to explore all aspect of conflict of interest. Whereas post Glenn, claimant would be able to do such exploration.

Application of Glenn’s to plaintiff’s discovery requests.

In this Hackett sought the information as to whether Standard has taken any steps to reduce potential bias and to promote accuracy. Hachette’s first six interrogatories go to the example set forth in Glenn. It would be illegal to place the new Glenn analysis into issue and deny Hackett the opportunity to explore information which would be weighing and conflict of interest in a discretionary benefits decision case. Therefore, Hackett’s request for discovery in interrogatories one to six was granted.

Interrogatory 7

In this interrogatory it was requested that standard produced the personnel files of the claims adjusters who made decision with respect to Hackett’s claim. Present Court believed that the scope of discovery was properly limited to whether an abuse of discretion existed and Hackett failed to show that requested personnel files contained information relevant to the conflict of interest.

Propose of the limited discovery was not to reopen all discovery. And Hackett failed to show that personnel records would contain information that helps to prove the conflict of interest. However personnel files might contain sensitive information and redaction might not cure the sensitive quality of sensitive information. For the above mentioned reasons, Hackett’s request to compel production of personnel files was denied.

Interrogatory 8

In this interrogatory, Hackett requested the complete set of personnel files of both Dr. Zivin and Dr. Dickerman, plus records of all evolutions made by Standard during the period of last nine years. The personnel files of Drs. Zivin and Dr. Dickerman were likely to contain sensitive information. And it would not be limited to information related to her claim alone but would affect the privacy of numerous individuals. And the entire personnel files of respective doctors could not be said relevant to the conflict of interest. Records of nine years relating to hundred of claimants contains more than required to prove amount of deference to the denial decision. Overall this request goes too far field and therefore Court denied the same.

Interrogatories 9 to 12

Above mentioned interrogatories were limited for the period of two years, Court granted her request for information as to respective numbers of times Dr. Zivin and Dr. Dickerman denial or allowed disability benefits from 2003 to 2005. The Court also agreed that it would be also helpful in determination of conflict of interest.

Therefore Hackett’s second motion to compel discovery was granted in part and denied in part. 

Finally, disability attorney got success in allowing the discovery because of his intelligence mind and expertise in insurance matters.