Arrabito v. First Unum Life Insurance Company

Nature of the order

This is a discovery-management order in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) case. The parties submitted a joint letter asking the court to help resolve an impasse over two written discovery requests and proposed depositions. The court ordered that a discovery conference would be held on June 5, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 40 of the federal courthouse at Foley Square in New York. The text does not state that the court granted or denied any discovery request.

Background

After an earlier court order, the defendants provided some information responsive to the plaintiff’s discovery requests. They initially withheld other information based on confidentiality concerns, then produced that information after the court entered a protective order. The plaintiff later identified alleged deficiencies and requested more information. The defendants agreed to provide some additional material but continued to object to three interrogatories and one request for production. The parties ultimately disagreed about two written requests and whether the plaintiff could depose Unum Director Katy Dixon and Dr. Neal Greenstein.

Plaintiff’s requests and position

The plaintiff sought complete responses to Written Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production No. 4. Interrogatory No. 6 requested information for 2020 and 2024 about doctors employed by Unum who reviewed or gave opinions concerning claims, including the number of written medical opinions they provided and the number finding that a claimant’s disability was supported. Request No. 4 sought emails during the period from October 20, 2020, through February 29, 2024, containing specified terms concerning recovery, guidance, projections, results, or similar subjects.

The plaintiff also sought depositions of Dixon, who was involved in the initial denial of the plaintiff’s claim, and Greenstein, whose opinions formed the basis for the denial of the plaintiff’s appeal. The plaintiff argued that the requests were narrowly focused on a possible conflict of interest and were relevant to whether financial bias affected the claim decisions.

Defendants’ objections

The defendants argued that judicial review in this ERISA case would generally be limited to the claim-administration record unless there was good cause to consider additional evidence. They contended that the plaintiff had not identified specific facts showing that a conflict of interest affected the claim decision or that the requested discovery was sufficiently narrow.

The defendants characterized Interrogatory No. 6 as seeking “batting average” information about doctors’ decisions in other claims. They argued that such information would not show bias without reviewing the facts of each other claim, would be burdensome to compile, and could involve protected health information or confidential information belonging to other insured people.

The defendants objected to Request No. 4 as overbroad and burdensome because it could require searches involving people unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim, periods outside the claim’s administration, and information already provided. They also objected to the proposed depositions, arguing that the individuals were not parties and that any permitted conflict-of-interest discovery should be directed to Unum rather than to specifically identified employees or consultants. The defendants stated that they had offered to consider a deposition of Unum under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), but no such notice had been provided.

Court action and classification

The court’s action in the provided text was to schedule a discovery conference. It did not resolve the parties’ discovery dispute, compel production, deny the requested discovery, authorize or prohibit the depositions, or decide the underlying ERISA benefits claim. The matter is therefore classified as a procedural order because it concerns discovery management rather than a decision on the merits.

The provided case metadata identifies Judge Gregory Woods. The order text itself is addressed to and signed by United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis, creating an attribution discrepancy that should be checked against the official docket.