Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee v…

Background

The plaintiff, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee, sought an order compelling defendant Aon to respond to a second set of interrogatories. The opinion identifies the dispute as involving interrogatories 2 through 13 and information concerning Aon’s diligence, advice, and Structured Alpha-related matters. Aon opposed the request in a December 14, 2021 letter. The court also considered the plaintiff’s request for a conference about the discovery dispute.

Interrogatories 2–12

The court held that interrogatories 2 through 12 violated Local Civil Rule 33.3(b). That rule generally favors obtaining discovery through document requests and depositions and permits broader interrogatories when they are a more practical way to obtain the requested information.

The court agreed with Aon’s position that interrogatories 2 through 12 largely duplicated the plaintiff’s document requests. The requests sought information about Aon’s due diligence and advice to the plaintiff, including analyses, calculations, materials considered, projections, and advice concerning concentration. The court was not persuaded that written interrogatories were more practical than reviewing Aon’s document production or taking depositions. The court therefore concluded that Aon did not have to answer interrogatories 2 through 12.

The court also noted Aon’s argument that the interrogatories were untimely contention interrogatories—questions seeking the factual basis for a party’s claims or defenses before the end of other discovery. The court’s ruling on these interrogatories, however, was expressly based on its finding that they violated Local Rule 33.3(b).

Interrogatory 13

Interrogatory 13 sought information about the holdings of Aon’s other clients in Structured Alpha. The court found that this information was disproportionate to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and did not directly bear on the individualized investment advice Aon gave the plaintiff in its fiduciary capacity.

The court addressed the plaintiff’s apparent purpose of comparing Aon’s advice to the plaintiff with advice given to other clients. It noted that Aon had already agreed to produce documents concerning other clients who were also plaintiffs in related actions. The court nevertheless found that the requested information about other clients’ allocations and concentrations did not justify requiring a fuller response to interrogatory 13.

Ruling

The court found that it did not need to hold a conference to resolve the discovery dispute and denied the plaintiff’s application for such a conference. Judge Failla denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel Aon to respond to interrogatories 2 through 12 and to provide a fuller response to interrogatory 13. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 117 and 120, as well as docket entry 127 concerning a redacted opposition letter.