Filed: Jul. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS (Doc. 30) JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge. Defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Inc., filed an ex parte application for a continuance of the hearing on the motion for attorney fees and costs filed by Plaintiff, Sheema Koloff. (Doc. 30.) MetLife notes that Plaintiff objected to the admissibility of the Administrative Record, asserting that it was not
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS (Doc. 30) JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge. Defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Inc., filed an ex parte application for a continuance of the hearing on the motion for attorney fees and costs filed by Plaintiff, Sheema Koloff. (Doc. 30.) MetLife notes that Plaintiff objected to the admissibility of the Administrative Record, asserting that it was not p..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS (Doc. 30)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Inc., filed an ex parte application for a continuance of the hearing on the motion for attorney fees and costs filed by Plaintiff, Sheema Koloff. (Doc. 30.) MetLife notes that Plaintiff objected to the admissibility of the Administrative Record, asserting that it was not properly authenticated and constituted hearsay. (Id. at 2.) Therefore, MetLife seeks the continuance "to cure any potential, technical deficiencies in the authentication if the Court is inclined to sustain Plaintiff's evidentiary objections." (Id.)
However, the Court finds there is no need for MetLife to re-file the declaration of Ms. Broadwater. (Doc. 20-2 at 2.) Though the Court denied the original request to seal, this did not have the effect of striking the declaration from the docket.
On the other hand, in ERISA cases, hearsay objections to the administrative record are not well-taken.1 Black v. Long Term Disability Ins., 582 F.3d 738, 746 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2009) ("The Federal Rules of Evidence, however, do not apply to an ERISA administrator's benefits determination, and we review the entire administrative record, including hearsay evidence relied upon by the administrator."); Herman v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 508 F. App'x 923 at *928 (11th Cir. 2013) ("[T] the district court's review was limited only by what was available to the plan administrator, not by the Federal Rules of Evidence."). Though the Court is not directly being asked to make a merits determination in this motion, to some degree, that is exactly what is being asked. Plaintiff has placed squarely at issue the claim that her litigation caused MetLife to grant her benefits. How this can be evaluated without consideration of the administrative record is difficult to fathom.
Moreover, to determine Plaintiff's entitlement the Court will consider the Hummel2 factors such that review of the administrator's actions must occur despite the hearsay nature of the administrative record.3 In apparent recognition of this fact, a great deal of Mr. McKennon's declaration filed in support of the motion for fees relies upon the administrative record or hearsay statements made during that process. (Doc. 17-1 at 10-13)
Finally, in general, courts routinely consider only the administrative record when determining whether fees should be granted in ERISA cases.4 Therefore, MetLife's ex parte request to continue the hearing to allow the filing of an amended declaration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
