Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Laurie Couto v. Sabic Innovative Plastics Salary Continuance Plan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 21, 2013

LAURIE COUTO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS SALARY CONTINUANCE PLAN,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

JOINT PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN AND PROPOSED ORDER Complaint Filed: February 9, 2012 20 Trial Date: None Set

Plaintiff and Defendant disagree over the scope of discovery in this ERISA case. Plaintiff 2 proposes conducting limited discovery confined to discovering evidence that will prove the 3 insurance company's bias, conflict of interest, failure to follow procedures, or failure to provide a 4 full and fair review of the claim. 5

This Discovery will include the following: 6

1. 20 Interrogatories; 7

2. 20 Requests for Admissions; 8

3. 20 Document requests. 9

Plaintiff is to serve these discovery requests within 30 days of the Court's approval of this 10 discovery plan. Plaintiff also proposes that if after the Defendant's responses are received, Plaintiff 11 deems depositions or other follow-up discovery necessary, the Parties shall meet and confer 12 regarding this issue and if the dispute cannot be resolved Plaintiff shall file a motion to compel said 13 deposition(s) or other follow-up discovery. 14

Defendant contends the discovery should be limited to production of the administrative 15 record and Plan Documents which have already been provided to Plaintiff's counsel. To the extent 16 the Court allows additional discovery narrowly tailored to the alleged conflict of interest, 17

Defendant does not object to the schedule proposed by Plaintiff and it will respond or object to the 18 actual discovery once it has an opportunity to review same. Even if narrowly tailored paper 19 discovery is allowed, Defendant contends that depositions would be inappropriate in the claim for 20

ERISA benefits. 21

Additionally, Plaintiff has filed both DFEH and EEOC complaints regarding her wrongful 22 termination from SABIC Innovative Plastics ("SABIC"). Plaintiff has now received "right to sue" 23 letters form both agencies. Plaintiff will either file a separate court action for employment related 24 claims against SABIC or will amend her Complaint in this matter to assert said claims. Should 25

Plaintiff file a separate state court claim, Defendant will seek to remove Plaintiff's employment 26 related case on diversity grounds and will seek to consolidate that matter with this case. If Plaintiff 27 chooses to amend her Complaint in this action to include the employment related claims against 28

SABIC, she will do so within 30 days of the Court's approval of this discovery plan. If said amended Complaint is filed, both Plaintiff and Defendant will meet and confer regarding a separate 2 discovery plan for the employment related claims. 3

DATED: February 7, 2013 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 4 STEWART, P.C.

By: /s/ Christopher M. Ahearn 7 Christopher M. Ahearn 8 Attorney for Defendant SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS SALARY 9 CONTINUANCE PLAN 10 DATED: February 7, 2013 WOLFORD LAW FIRM. 11 12 By: /s/ Jason N. Wolford Jason N. Wolford 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 LAURIE COUTO

PROPOSED ORDER

It is so ordered. 17 18

Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

20130321

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.