Laitin v. Unum Group et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Steven P Laitin,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unum Group, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02763-PHX-KML
ORDER
The parties ask the court to resolve several discovery disputes in this bad-faith
disability insurance action. (Doc. 38.) Plaintiff Laitin, an anesthesiologist, alleges
defendants Unum Group and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company
(collectively “Unum”) denied his claim for total disability benefits in bad faith by
redefining his occupational duties and relying on in-house medical consultant Dr. Katrina
Turner and third-party reviewer Dr. Kevin Kohan of Dane Street, LLC. (Doc. 38 at 1–2.)
Laitin’s disability claim was submitted in January 2025 and denied in April 2025. (Doc. 1
at 7, 9.) The disputes are resolved as follows:
RFP No. 2: Laitin seeks the performance evaluations of individuals involved in this
claim from January 2023 to present. (Doc. 38 at 2.) But Unum represents that those
employees are not evaluated based on whether they approve or deny claims (Doc. 38 at 3),
so those records are not obviously relevant to the case. A sweep of personnel records from
two years before the case began also is not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The request is denied.
Case 2:25-cv-02763-KML Document 39 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NaviLink Audit Trail: Laitin seeks the NaviLink audit trail for his claim, which
reflects the individuals who accessed the file and when. (Doc. 38 at 2.) That information is
relevant to how the claim was handled. The request is granted, subject to Unum’s
redactions to address work-product concerns.
RFP No. 9: Laitin seeks letters of understanding, guidelines, and instructions
relating to medical record reviews, including those provided to Dane Street, from 2020 to
present. (Doc. 38 at 2.) A six-year sweep of materials is disproportionate to a claim pending
for only three months in 2025, and Unum has agreed to produce the relevant section of the
Claims Manual in effect when the claim was decided, along with any linked training
materials Laitin cannot access. (Doc. 38 at 3–4.) That targeted production is sufficient.
Laitin’s request is denied.
ROG No. 4: Laitin seeks three years of compensation information for Turner,
including salary, bonuses, and incentive targets. (Doc. 38 at 2, 4.) Turner is a salaried
employee whose compensation is not tied to claim outcomes. (Doc. 38 at 4.) Absent such
a link, her salary information is not relevant to the bad-faith claim. The request is denied.
ROG No. 6: Laitin seeks aggregate statistics regarding the number of disability file
reviews Turner and Kohan performed from 2023 onward and the number in which they
determined the claimant could work. (Doc. 38 at 2, 25). Those statistics are relevant to bias
and financial incentive because they may show whether the reviewers Unum used tend to
render insurer-favorable opinions with unusual frequency. Courts have recognized that
bias-related evidence concerning repeat use of reviewers and similar indicators of partiality
can be relevant in disability cases. See Jones v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 457 F. Supp. 3d
751, 755–56 (D. Ariz. 2020) (allowing discovery into “the number of times [the reviewers]
concluded that a claimant could perform work”); see also Demer v. IBM Corp. LTD Plan,
835 F.3d 893, 901 (9th Cir. 2016) (challenges to reviewer objectivity are comparable to
conventional efforts to impeach retained experts based on number of times they have
served a party and amount of compensation received). And notably, those cases arose in
the ERISA context, where discovery plays a far more limited role than in ordinary civil
Case 2:25-cv-02763-KML Document 39 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cases like this one. Jones, 457 F. Supp. 3d at 753. That said, other courts in this district
have declined to allow similar discovery. See, e.g., Cheatwood v. Christian Bros. Servs.,
No. 2:16-CV-2946-HRH, 2018 WL 287389, at *3–4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2018); Bronick v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CV-11-01442-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 3716600, at *9–
10 (D. Ariz. July 15, 2013). Because Laitin’s request seeks only summary figures, not the
underlying claim files, the burden of production appears modest and proportional to the
needs of the case. Any concern that such statistics may be misleading can be addressed
later in the litigation, including at trial. Cf. Cheatwood, 2018 WL 287389, at *3. The
request is granted.
ROG No. 8: Interrogatory No. 8 is somewhat unclear (see Doc. 38 at 29), and the
parties’ joint summary does not meaningfully clarify it. Laitin appears to seek the total
number of assessments Kohan performed on Unum disability claims and the total number
of claims referred to him from 2023 onward. (Doc. 38 at 3.) Unlike ROG No. 6, this request
does not ask about claim outcomes. It asks about the volume of Unum’s referrals to Kohan,
which is relevant to the depth of the business relationship and the potential bias or financial
incentive arising from it. See Leung v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 22-CV-00767-W-
JLB, 2023 WL 4056041, at *6–7 (S.D. Cal. June 15, 2023) (compelling Unum to produce
number of times it hired Dane Street as relevant to bias). The burden of producing two
summary figures is minimal. The request is granted.
AVP Deposition: Laitin seeks to depose Unum’s Assistant Vice President, who
supervises Director Berryman and receives weekly tracking reports. (Doc. 38 at 3.) Here,
the AVP had no involvement in Laitin’s claim, cf. Frontera v. Unum Grp. Corp., No.
3:17CV933 (DJS), 2018 WL 11445542, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 20, 2018), and information
about weekly tracking reports and claims metrics can be obtained from Berryman, who did
work on the claim and will be deposed. (Doc. 38 at 4–5.) The request is denied.
IT IS ORDERED no later than 21 days after the date of this order, Unum shall
produce the NaviLink audit trail for Laitin’s claim with work-product entries redacted and
respond to ROG Nos. 6 and 8 by providing the appropriate summary figures.
Case 2:25-cv-02763-KML Document 39 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Laitin’s requests for additional responsive
information regarding RFP No. 2, RFP No. 9, ROG No. 4, and to conduct the AVP
deposition are denied.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02763-KML Document 39 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 4