TOVEN

Toven v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Good Law
517 F. Supp. 2d 1171·2007 WL 2713579·2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71161
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2007CV 06-07260ABCRZXCalifornia837 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zarefsky, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for a protective order. The matter is fully briefed, and the Court finds that oral argument will not aid in the disposition of the motion. Accordingly, the hearing set for September 17, 2007 is vacated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

This case arises under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et seq. Plaintiff Samuel Toven asserts that Defendant wrongly denied his disability claim. In furtherance of his position, Plaintiff has noticed the depositions of Noemis Marcano-Molina and Karen Van Aernam, two of Defendant’s claims representatives, and Dr. Lyle Mitzner, a physician whom Defendant consulted prior to making its decision. Defendant seeks a protective order prohibiting these depositions.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order, including a protective order that the discovery not be had. Defendant argues that the issue to be decided is whether Defendant abused its discretion in denying the disability claim, and that that determination must be made from the administrative record. Hence, material outside the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.