Cloud v. The Bert Bell

• Decision Date: 30 September 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:20-CV-1277-S
• Parties: MICHAEL CLOUD v. THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

MICHAEL CLOUD
v.
THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN

Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-1277-S

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

September 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KAREN GREN SCHOLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Order addresses Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Court's Order [Dkt. 38] and Production of Documents and Records and Incorporated Brief in Support Thereof ("Motion") [ECF No. 41]. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael Cloud ("Plaintiff) is a former National Football League ("NFL") player. See Am. Compl. [ECF No. 68] ¶ 4. The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan ("Defendant" or the "Plan") is a benefit plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). A six-member Retirement Board ("Board")-the Plan's administrator- has discretion to decide appeals and make final decisions for those denied benefits under the Plan. See ECF No. 16 Ex. B at 49. Initial benefits decisions are made by the Disability Initial Claims Committee ("Committee"). See Id. at 46. The Plan provides various disability benefits to former players, including different types of total and permanent ("T&P") benefits. See Id. at 27. Each T&P benefit has different requirements for eligibility. See id.

Plaintiff claims that the Board (1) wrongfully denied him "Active Football" T&P Benefits and (2) failed to provide him a "full and fair review." See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-47, 48-51.

1

On July 22, 2021, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record [ECF No. 24]. See ECF No. 38. The Court allowed discovery on (1) communications between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding Plaintiffs medical documentation; (2) any additional unproduced medical records in Defendant's possession; and (3) such other information relevant to the completeness of the Administrative Record in this case and/or whether Defendant complied with ERISA's procedural regulations. Id. Plaintiff deposed the two members of the Committee that decided his initial benefits claim, as well as Defendant's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) designated corporate representative. See Mot. ¶ 26; Reply [ECF No. 50] ¶ 3. Subsequent to these depositions, Plaintiff sought additional discovery from Defendant. See, e.g., Mot.Exs. 1-3. Defendant objected, or indicated that it had no additional documents responsive, to nearly all of these requests. See id.

Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion, seeking to compel (1) the deposition of all six Board members; (2) the production of information on other former NFL players, including the number of claims granted or denied by the Plan, the level of benefits granted, and the basis on which such claims were granted or denied; and (3) the production of outstanding medical records relating to Plaintiff. See Mot. ¶¶ 28, 34-35, 38. Plaintiff also seeks to recover all costs, expenses, and attorney's fees associated with both the filing of the Motion and the depositions of Board members. Id. ¶ 40. Finally, Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadline.^[1]Mot.¶ 33. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on August 25, 2021 and ordered supplemental briefing, which the parties filed on September 10, 2021. See ECF Nos. 58, 59.

2

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Compel

The party resisting discovery "must show specifically how . . . each [discovery request] is not relevant or how each [request] is overly broad, burdensome [, ] or oppressive." See McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990) (first alteration in original) (quoting Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982)). To make this showing, the party resisting discovery must submit affidavits or offer evidence revealing the nature of the burden. See Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 475, 478 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (citations omitted).

B. Review of ERISA Determinations

In reviewing an ERISA plan administrator's actions, a district court effectively sits as an appellate body. See McCorkle v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 757 F.3d 452, 456 (5th Cir. 2014); Barhan v. Ry-Ronlnc, 121 F.3d 198, 201 (5th Cir. 1997). To rule on Plaintiffs Motion, the Court must determine (1) whether the discovery sought fits within an ERISA discovery exception and (2) whether that discovery will be relevant in the Court's ultimate determination of the merits of each claim. See Wildbur v. ARCO Chem. Co., 974 F.2d 631, 636 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Revels v. Standard his. Co., 504 F.Supp.3d 556 (N.D. Tex. 2020).

1) Discovery in ERISA Actions

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." The Fifth Circuit, however, has limited the scope of permissible discovery in ERISA actions.^[2] While the Court may not stray from the administrative record once it has been

3

determined, there are "certain limited exceptions" where a plaintiff may supplement the record through discovery. Vega v. Nat'1 Life Ins. Servs., Inc., 188F.3d287, 299(5thCir. 1999) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008); see also Anderson, 619 F.3d at 516 n.9 (“Vega could be read to require ERISA administrators to keep the administrative record open.").

In determining whether benefits should have been afforded under an ERISA plan, the Court may allow a plaintiff to supplement the administrative record with information that (1) relates to how the administrator interpreted the plan in the past or (2) would assist the Court in understanding medical terms and procedures. Id. Discovery may also be obtained to resolve "other questions" that may be raised in an ERISA action. Crosby v. Louisiana Health Serv. and Indent Co., 647 F.3d 258, 263 (5th Cir. 2011). The Court may allow discovery on information relating to (1) the completeness of the administrative record; (2) whether the plan administrator complied with ERISA's procedural regulations;^[3] or (3) the existence and extent of a conflict of interest created by a plan administrator's dual role in making benefits determinations and funding the plan. Crosby, 647 F.3d at 263. Discovery requests for these types of information "may be relevant and thus permissible under federal discovery rules." Id. (citing Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 820 (5th Cir. 2004).

Even if an exception applies, the Court must monitor discovery in ERISA cases "very closely," and limit discovery according to the general discovery rules under Rule 26(b). Crosby, 647 F.3d at 264. Rule 26(b)(2) requires the Court to "limit the frequency or extent of discovery" if "(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party

4

seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)."^[4] FED. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

2) Relevance to Each Claim

Plaintiff asserts claims for (1) wrongful denial of benefits due under the terms of the Plan and (2) failure to comply with ERISA procedural regulations. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-47, 48-51.

...