CRUME
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that limited discovery outside the administrative record is permissible in ERISA cases reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard.
MetLife appealed a magistrate's order denying its motion for a protective order, which would have prevented the plaintiff from deposing a MetLife empl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Protective Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Order
CONWAY, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s Appeal/Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 47), and Plaintiff Deborah N. Crume’s Response thereto (Doc. 49).
In this ERISA denial-of-benefits action, MetLife maintains that Magistrate Judge Glazebrook erred in determining that Plaintiff could conduct a deposition of a MetLife employee involved in MetLife’s claim denial decision. In MetLife’s view, a district court may only consider the administrative record when reviewing a claims administrator’s benefit denial decision in a case subject to the arbitrary and capricious (or heightened arbitrary and capricious) standard. Consequently, MetLife argues, information outside the administrative record is irrelevant, and is therefore not subject to discovery.
This Court disagrees. As stated by Magistrate Judge Pizzo, of this District’s Tampa Division, limited discovery is generally appropriate in cases in which the arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies,
to assist the court in evaluating 1) the exact nature of the information considered by the fiduciary in making the decision; 2) whether the fiduciary was competent to evaluate the information in the administrative record; 3) how the fiduciary reached its decision; 4) whether, given the nature of the information in the record, it was incumbent upon the fiduciary to seek outside technical assistance in reaching a “fair and full review” of the claim; and 5) to determine whether a conflict of interest existed.
Cerrito v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston,
209 F.R.D. 663, 664 (M.D.Fla.2002);
see also Lake v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
218 F.R.D. 260, 261
*1214
(M.D.Fla.2003) (Lazzara, J.) (relying on Cerrito);
Rosser-Monahan v. Avon Prods., Inc.,
227 F.R.D. 695, 698-99 (M.D.Fla.2004) (Jenkins, Mag. J.) (relying on
Cerrito
and Lake);
Woodward v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.,
No. 1:02CV64MMP, 2003 WL 1798519 *1 (N.D.Fla. Mar.10, 2003) (Paul, Senior J.) (relying on Cerrito). Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Glazebrook did not err in permitting Plaintiff to conduct discovery within the parameters of
Cerrito.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s Appeal/Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 47), filed August 23, 2005, is OVERRULED.
2. Magistrate Judge Glazebrook’s Memorandum of Decision Denying Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 42), filed August 10, 2005, is AFFIRMED.
3. Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limitations (Doc. 46), filed August 23, 2005, is GRANTED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 388 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…89 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding under the de novo standard the court's review “is not limited to facts available to the Administrator at the time of the determination”); Crume v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 388 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2005), aff’d, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (M.D. 1 ---PAGE 2--- Case 8:25-cv-01670-KKM-AAS Document 23 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID 114 Fla. 2005) (finding under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review the court's review is limited to information known by the administrator, an…
-
Hans-Atchison v. Highmark Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…the denial of benefits under Defendants' ERISA plans and the bases for the denial, limited discovery is permissible to ascertain the facts known to the administrator at the time the claims denial decision was made."); Crume v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1213–14 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (affirming decision to permit discovery “within the parameters of Cerrito"). The undersigned will permit a very short period of time in which Plaintiff may conduct limited and targeted discovery on these issues, as set fort…