The First Circuit has yet to speak to whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008), will affect its approach to discovery in ERISA cases, though the Court heard arguments on the issue on December 2, 2008, in the case of Denmark v. Liberty Life Assur. Co.
Several district court opinions within the First Circuit have addressed the issue. In Christie v. MBNA Group Long Term Disability Plan, 2008 WL 4427192 (D.Me. 2008), for example, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for discovery, holding that even post-Glenn discovery regarding an ERISA administrator’s conflict of interest is only available upon a showing of good cause.
In that case, the plaintiff sought discovery regarding the insurer’s internal policies and procedures related to incentive programs, and regarding any internal structures used to “wall off” claims handlers. The court denied the request because Christie had not shown how the discovery would impact the court’s analysis regarding the reasonableness of the underlying decision. The court stated that the Glenn decision “was not a case about discovery” and did not alter the law in the First Circuit that good cause be shown to pursue discovery in an ERISA action.
The court did note, in dicta, that where a conflicted administrator’s decision is of “dubious quality” or presents only an “evenly balanced picture,” the existence of a structural conflict may be sufficient grounds to order discovery regarding the conflict of interest. Additionally, the court noted that to the extent an insurer seeks to introduce evidence in its own favor to reduce the weight that is given to the structural conflict factor, the claimant should be permitted to conduct discovery.
Other district court cases within the circuit have similarly found that Glenn does not alter the rule that discovery in ERISA cases is only permitted upon a showing of good cause. See Achorn v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 2008 WL 442715 (D.Me. 2008); DuBois v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Amer., 2008 WL 2783282 (D.Me. 2008). The question of whether the First Circuit will likewise find that Glenn does not alter the law regarding the availability of discovery should soon be answered, once the court issues its decision in Denmark.
Jessica H. Munyon
Mirick O'Connell
jhmunyon@modl.com
