Alexander v. Harris et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE
RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION
MDL Docket No. 1:22-md-03035-STA-jay
ALL CASES
ORDER DENYING SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Symetra Life Insurance Company’s Motion
for Clarification of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions or,
in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order. (ECF No. 959.) 	Symetra asks the Court to
“clarify” that no party is required to search for or produce documents created after October 3, 2023,
unless that party intends to use the document to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would
be solely for impeachment. Plaintiffs have filed a response in which they oppose the motion. (ECF
No. 1013.) Symetra’s motion is DENIED.
The order in question, “Order Granting in Part, Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Sanctions,” was specific in discussing the parties’ duties and responsibilities regarding discovery
supplementation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). As previously stated,
“Rule 26(e) imposes an ongoing duty on parties to supplement disclosures.” House
v. Player’s Dugout, Inc., No. 22-5843, 2024 WL 495998, at *9 (6th Cir. Feb. 8,
2024). “The default rule is . . . that a party has a duty to supplement [its] discovery
response if [it] learns that [its] response is in some material respect incomplete or
incorrect.” Taylor v. Union Inst., 30 F. App’x 443, 451 (6th Cir. 2002)
….
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 962 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2
PageID <pageID>

2
At the very least, parties must supplement “periodically in a fashion that will allow
[the opposing party] to conduct meaningful discovery and avoid undue delay in the
progress of [the] case.” Id. (quoting U.S. ex rel. Fry v. Guidant Corp., No. 3:03–
0842, 2009 WL 3103836, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2009)); see also Manual on
Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 11.13 (“Rule 26(e)(1) requires parties to correct or
supplement disclosures at appropriate intervals if they learn that the information
(even if correct when supplied) is materially incomplete or incorrect, unless they
have already informed the other party of the corrective or additional information
during discovery or in writing.”)
(Ord. p. 9, ECF No. 923.)
In effect, Symetra seeks an advisory opinion that it has no duty to produce documents
created after October 3, 2023. The Court cannot do this blindly without examining the particular
documents to which Symetra refers. The best course of action is for Symetra (or any other party)
to file a motion in limine or a motion for protective order concerning specific document(s) it
believes it should not have to produce under Rule 26(e). This will give the opposing party an
opportunity to argue why the document(s) should not have to be produced.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: October 31, 2025
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 962 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2
PageID <pageID>