Galli v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Notice/Severance Policy As Amended and…
Galli v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Notice/Severance Policy As Amended and Restated Effective February 1, 2011
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-07224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Galli v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP: Judge Schofield denied Galli’s request to reconsider the earlier denial of discovery outside the administrative record.
Susan J. Galli’s request to revisit the prior denial of discovery outside the administrative record was denied; the opinion also discusses PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other defendants.
What happened
In Galli v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Susan J. Galli challenged whether PricewaterhouseCoopers provided the notice period required by the pension plan. The court had previously denied her request for discovery outside the plan’s administrative record.
Galli asked the court to reconsider that discovery ruling, arguing that a Second Circuit decision about pension-plan remedies changed the law. She also argued that her request was part of a process seeking additional remedies and possible amendment of her complaint.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motion for reconsideration. The court found that Galli identified no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice, and that the cited decision did not address discovery outside the administrative record.
The detailed version
- Galli v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Notice/Severance Policy As Amended and… · No. 1:19-cv-07224
- Lorna Schofield
- May 29, 2020
Background
Susan J. Galli brought this action against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Notice/Severance Policy As Amended and Restated Effective February 1, 2011, and other defendants. The opinion describes the dispute as concerning whether PwC gave Galli the notice period required under the pension plan.
The court had previously denied Galli’s motion to compel discovery outside the administrative record. The administrative record is the material compiled during the plan-administration process. The opinion identifies that earlier ruling as Docket No. 34.
Motions and arguments
The defendants had moved for summary judgment on Count II, which sought recovery of denied benefits under the plan under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and had moved to compel arbitration on Counts I, III, IV, and V. Galli later asked the court to defer ruling on those motions and sought additional equitable and injunctive remedies, including possible rescission, reformation, specific performance, estoppel, surcharge, and a constructive trust. She also indicated that she might seek leave to file a second amended complaint or add parties.
The court treated Galli’s letter motion as a request to reconsider the earlier discovery ruling and as a motion for leave to amend the complaint. After the court denied that request, Galli moved for reconsideration of the denial.
Galli argued that the Second Circuit’s decision in a prior related proceeding involving PricewaterhouseCoopers changed the controlling law concerning equitable remedies under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. She also argued that her request was the first step in a process to address alleged problems with the pension plan and its administration.
Legal standard
The court stated that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a need to correct clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. Reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain a second opportunity to argue the case.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Galli’s motion for reconsideration. The court found that Galli did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. It also held that the cited Second Circuit decision concerned reformation and enforcement remedies under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, not discovery outside the administrative record.
The court further concluded that the decision did not establish a new procedural basis for Galli’s request, particularly after the parties had fully briefed their cross-motions for summary judgment. The order states: “Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.