Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee v…

Background

The plaintiff, the National Employee Benefits Committee, sued in connection with investments in the National Retirement Trust. The court considered Defendant Aon’s request to require the plaintiff to add document custodians—people whose electronic files would be collected and searched—to the discovery process.

The plaintiff had proposed searching the files of 14 custodians, including National Employee Benefits Administration investment staff and two committee members. It stated that it had produced more than 75,000 documents from those custodians. Aon sought the addition of 31 current and former committee members. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that most of the individuals worked or had worked for other Blue Cross Blue Shield companies and that the plaintiff did not possess, control, or have custody of their documents.

Parties’ positions

The plaintiff argued that Aon had already served subpoenas on the companies that employed many of the requested custodians and that those companies were the more direct sources of the documents. It also argued that adding all 31 custodians would be unreasonable, duplicative, and burdensome.

Aon’s pre-motion submission identified 10 priority custodians and gave specific reasons why those individuals were likely to possess unique and relevant documents. For eight of the 10, Aon cited documents produced in discovery. For the other two, Mark Stimpson and Charles Divita, Aon relied on their roles and periods of service on the committee and its investment subcommittee. The court found that Aon had articulated a legitimate basis to believe that all 10 priority custodians were likely to possess unique and relevant documents.

Ruling

Judge Failla granted in part and denied in part Aon’s motion to compel. The court ordered the plaintiff to designate these 10 individuals as document custodians: Mike Mizeur, Mark El-Tawil, Christopher Booth, Bryan Camerlinck, Thurman Justice, Tim Huckle, Karen Abraham, Andrew Corbin, Mark Stimpson, and Charles Divita. The plaintiff must run the parties’ previously agreed search terms on documents collected from those additional custodians.

The court denied the request for any additional custodians beyond those 10. The order did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims about the investments; it addressed the scope of discovery. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 132 and 134.