STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER

SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED

PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Todd Tolbert ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Cox Enterprises, Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company (collectively "Defendants"), by and through counsel of record, hereby jointly move this Court for a special scheduling review of the parties' proposed discovery plan in this matter.

I. Rule 26(f) Conference.

Pursuant to FRCP 26(f), a meeting was held on November 22, 2016 between counsel for the parties. Counsel discussed the claims and legal issues at the meeting and agreed that the standard discovery plan is not best-suited for this lawsuit for the reasons set forth below.

II. Nature of Case and Purpose of Special Review.

This dispute involves Plaintiff TOLBERT'S claim for long-term disability benefits under a group insurance plan administered by Defendant COX ENTERPRISES, INC. ("Cox Enterprises" or "Plan Administrator") for the benefit of its employees. COX ENTERPRISES delegated the administration of claims under the plan to Defendant AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ("AETNA" or "Claims Administrator"). Plaintiff's complaint alleges a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ("ERISA"). Discovery may be limited to the administrative record for Plaintiff's administrative claim and appeal. The administrative record includes, inter alia, Plaintiff's medical records, Plaintiff's arguments for the payment of benefits, the Plan Administrator's and Claim Administrator's decisions, Defendant's claim investigation and reports of medical reviewers, and the long-term disability plan documents.

Plaintiff brought suit alleging that Aetna improperly denied his claim for disability benefits. ERISA regulates employee benefit plans such as the Plan under which Plaintiff is seeking benefits. Defendants contend that the issue in this case is whether Aetna's decision to terminate LTD benefits constitutes an abuse of discretion.

III. Proposed Plan.

A. Production and Review of the Administrative Record: Defendants are in possession of the administrative record in this matter. Defendants will produce a proposed bates-stamped administrative record for Plaintiff's review by January 9, 2017. Plaintiff agrees to waive the initial disclosure requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), et seq. On or before January 23, 2017, Plaintiff will notify Defendants of his position as to the following: (1) whether Plaintiff believes that the record is complete or any additional documents should be added to the administrative record; (2) whether Plaintiff believes that any documents contained in the proposed administrative record should be omitted, and (3) whether Plaintiff believes that any discovery beyond the administrative record should be conducted.

B. Filing of Administrative Record/Motion for Discovery: On or before March 16, 2017, the Defendants will file a joint administrative record with this Court, the contents of which will be agreed upon by Plaintiff. In the event the parties cannot reach an agreement on the joint administrative record, Plaintiff will file any motion(s) that Plaintiff believes is appropriate, including but not limited to moving to conduct discovery beyond the administrative record and/or moving to supplement or omit from the administrative record, by May 18, 2017 (pending determination on any motions, the parties will file on May 18, 2017, those portions of the administrative record on which they do agree).

C. Briefing Schedule for Legal Issues/Merits of the Case: The primary legal issues in this matter are the following: (1) the standard of review to be applied to Defendants' decision to deny Plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits; and (2) whether, applying that standard of review, Plaintiff has met his burden of proving the decision should be overturned.

If a joint administrative record is timely filed and Plaintiff does not seek to conduct discovery beyond the administrative record, or to supplement or omit from the administrative record, the parties propose that FRCP Rule 52 motions be filed no later than June 8, 2017. Thereafter, the parties will file opposing memoranda by June 22, 2017, and reply memoranda by July 6, 2017.

If Plaintiff does seek and is permitted discovery beyond the administrative record, the above deadlines will be suspended. The parties will work together and with the Court to prepare a new scheduling order, and may seek a status conference to address any outstanding discovery or other issues.

WHEREFORE, the parties jointly request that this Court adopt the proposed discovery and case schedule set forth herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.