Schaefer v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA SCHAEFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
No. 4:24-CV-00590
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FEBRUARY 12, 2026
I. 	BACKGROUND
Barbara Schaefer (“Plaintiff”) brought a complaint against UNUM Life
Insurance Company of America (“Defendant”) for what she asserts was improper
termination of her disability benefits.1 She brought six claims, including for breach
of contract, bad faith insurance practice, and improper denial of benefits as well as
breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. 2
Parties proceeded to discovery. Plaintiff served on Defendant a series of
interrogatories 	and 	requests 	for 	production 	of 	documents, 	and 	Defendant
responded.3 Relevant to the instant motion, Plaintiff sought the following topics:
employment information, including compensation, for claims adjusters and their
1 	Doc. 16 (Amend. Compl.).
2 	Id.
3 	34-3 (“Exhibit C,” Defendant’s Suppl. Responses).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 18

2
history 	of 	decisions; 	information 	about 	the 	supervision 	of 	claims 	adjusters;
compensation to and history of claims referred to medical clinic Dane Street; and
documents related to state or federal agency investigation into Defendant.4
At the beginning of Defendant’s responses to both the interrogatories and
requests for production, Defendant laid out a list of “general objections,” which it
proceeded to incorporate into all of its responses to the interrogatories and requests
for production.5 The general objections included, for instance: that requested
material was “beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [and] the
Local Rules for the Federal Rules of Evidence;” that the request is “overly broad and
unduly burdensome;” that the information sought “is protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine;” that the request is “vague,
ambiguous 	and 	beyond 	comprehension,” 	and 	other 	such 	general 	objections.6
Defendant also proceeded to add specific objections to various interrogatories and
requests for production, and repeatedly pointed Plaintiff to the “claim file” as the
source for sought information. 7
Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to compel Defendant to fully answer
the interrogatories and requests for production, and seeking leave to file additional
interrogatories beyond those normally proscribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4 	Doc. 34-3 (“Exhibit A,” Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories).
5 	Doc. 34-3 (Exhibit C).
6 	Id. at 79.
7 	See id. at Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 9, 13, 16, passim.
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 18

3
22(a)(1). The motion is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons stated below, the
motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, and the motion to serve
additional interrogatories is denied.
II. 	LAW
A. 	Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” 8 Courts interpret relevancy
“broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to
other matter[s] that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” 9 Discovery
requests are, therefore, relevant so long as “there is any possibility that the
information may be relevant to the general subject matter of the action.” 10
In 	the 	instant 	case, 	Plaintiff 	seeks 	discovery 	through 	two 	devices:
interrogatories and requests for production. “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered
by the court,” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 allows “no more than 25 written
interrogatories” relating to “any matter that may be inquired into under Rule
26(b).”11 “Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent
8 	FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).
9 	Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-51 (1978).
10 	Caruso v. Coleman Co., 157 F.R.D. 344, 347 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
11 	FED. R. CIV. P. 33.
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 18

4
consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).”12 Requests for production of documents are
governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, which provides that a party served
a request under this rule must “produce and permit the requesting party or its
representative 	to 	inspect, 	copy, 	test, 	or 	sample...designated 	documents 	or
electronically stored information...stored in any medium from which information
can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding
party into a reasonably usable form.” 13 If a party fails to respond to either discovery
mode within the required time period, the requesting party is permitted under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to move for an order compelling a response. 14
Parties may object to such discovery mechanisms, but “[t]he grounds for
objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”15 Furthermore, “[a]ny
ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause,
excuses the failure.” 16 “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response
must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.”17 Additionally, “specific
objections must be tied to a particular interrogatory or a class thereof and, thus,
general objections to an entire set of interrogatories are improper.” 18 The United
12 	Id. at 33(a)(1).
13 	FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1).
14 	See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv).
15 	FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4).
16 	Id.
17 	FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4).
18 	American Civil Liberties Union v. Gonzales, 237 F.R.D. 120, 131 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (citing to
Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991-92 (3d Cir. 1982).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 18

5
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has clarified that general objections are
improper where “interposed in an attempt to insulate from discovery a large quantity
of material that includes otherwise discoverable material when only some of the
material may be protectible.”19
Moreover, parties may invoke Rule 33(d) to produce business records in
response to interrogatories rather than specific information.20 However, when doing
so, the responding party must “specif[y] the records that must be reviewed, in
sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as
readily as the responding party could.” 21 Additionally, should the responding party
choose to utilize Rule 33(d), the documents provided “must in fact contain the
answer to the interrogatory.” 22
B. 	Analysis
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to fully answer essentially all of the
interrogatories and requests for production.23 After the instant motion was filed,
19 	Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., 580 F.3d 119, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2009).
20 	FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d).
21 	Id. at 33(d)(1).
22 	Schreiber v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 05-CV-2616, 2007 WL 9821904, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19,
2007) (citing Caruso v. Coleman Co., No. 93-CV-6733, 1995 WL 262521, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr.
28, 1995) (“When a responding party invokes Rule 33(d)'s option ... he still has a duty to supply
all the information requested and cannot avoid answers by producing documents in which the
information may or may not be found.”).
23 	Doc. 32 (Br. in Supp.) at 4 (describing issues with Defendant’s responses to Interrogatory Nos.
3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 21, 24, 25) and 5-11 (detailing issues with responses to Nos. 4, 11, 13,
14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and issues with Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 2-9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16-18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 18

6
Defendant served supplemental discovery responses; Plaintiff asserts the responses
persisted in their deficiency. In response to Plaintiff’s requested information,
Defendant elucidated a series of general objections that it incorporated into each
response24 but, in brief, argues specific objections to the following sought topics:
employment information, including compensation, for claims adjusters and their
history 	of 	decisions; 	information 	about 	the 	supervision 	of 	claims 	adjusters;
compensation to and history of claims referred to medical clinic Dane Street; and
documents related to state or federal agency investigation into Defendant.25
First, 	the 	Court 	will 	deem 	Defendant’s 	general 	objections 	to 	each
interrogatory and requests for production of documents waived. Defendant’s eight
“general objections” that it incorporated into every answer are clearly “interposed in
an attempt to insulate from discovery a large quantity of material that includes
otherwise 	discoverable 	material 	when 	only 	some 	of 	the 	material 	may 	be
protectible.” 26 Defendant may not shift the burden of determining whether each and
every interrogatory or request for production could be objectionable to this Court by
invoking the entire realm of possible objections, even where certain objections are
24 	Doc. 34-3 at 37, 64.
25 	Doc. 34-1 (Br. in Opp.) at 9, 11, 14, 18. In brief, Plaintiff presented each interrogatory and
request for production individually and touted their relevancy. Doc. 32. Defendant has raised
specific objections in its brief which appear to cover the field of disputed information and,
accordingly, the Court will address the disputes through that lens, as Plaintiff filed no Reply
Brief to clarify which arguments are indeed disputed. While Plaintiff is not required to file a
Reply Brief, the practical nature of not doing so is to give rise to a significant lack of clarity of
what, precisely, remains disputed.
26 	Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., 580 F.3d 119, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2009).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 18

7
clearly 	inapplicable 	to 	specific 	interrogatories 	or 	requests 	for 	production 	of
documents.27 Accordingly, 	Defendant 	may 	not 	rely 	solely 	on 	its 	boilerplate
objections when opposing Plaintiff’s discovery request, nor will the Court consider
them for the instant motion.
Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that, on multiple instances, Defendant indicated
that requested information could be found in documents produced to Plaintiff but
that, after review of the documents, Plaintiff could not locate it. As noted previously,
should a party utilize Rule 33(d) and provide documents rather than specific
information, the documents provided “must in fact contain the answer to the
interrogatory.” On the topics for which Defendant is compelled to provide discovery,
elucidated below, Defendant must do so by producing material that genuinely
includes the information sought.
Turning now to Defendant’s specific objections to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests. I address each in turn.
27 	See Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292, 296 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (“[Opponent]
objects 	generally 	to 	this 	interrogatory 	as 	‘overly 	broad, burdensome, 	oppressive 	and
irrelevant[,]’ a complaint which [opponent] echoes with virtually every other interrogatory. To
voice a successful objection to an interrogatory, [opponent] cannot simply intone this familiar
litany. Rather, 	[opponent] 	must 	show 	specifically 	how, 	despite 	the 	broad 	and 	liberal
construction afforded the federal discovery rules, each interrogatory is not relevant or how
each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive.”).
Moreover, it appears that this is a fairly typical practice for Unum. See Dwyer v. Unum Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 470 F. Supp. 3d 434, 438 (E.D. Pa. 2020); Wittmann v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of
Am., No. 17-9501, 2018 WL 1912163, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 23, 2018) (Wilkinson, M.J.); Gray
v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 17-1778, 2018 WL 4566850, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018)
(Kato, M.J.).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 18

8
1. 	Compensation Information
Defendant’s first specific objection is to the compensation information for
claims and medical personnel.28 In request for production of documents No. 2,
Plaintiff 	requests 	documentation 	of 	all 	payments 	made 	by 	Defendant 	to 	its
employees identified in Plaintiff’s interrogatories, both non-medical and medical
personnel, claiming such information is relevant to “Plaintiff’s allegation that the
Defendant compensated employees for denying or terminating claims.”29 Defendant
objects, claiming that the documents are irrelevant.
Courts that have addressed this issue have reached differing conclusions on
the 	discoverability 	of 	compensation 	information. 30 At 	the 	very 	least, 	courts
28 	Doc. 34 at 9 (objecting to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 10, 19, 22, 26, 28, 29 and Request for
Production No. 2). Plaintiff seems to be in agreement that Defendant has sufficiently answered
the requests for compensation, or subpart f of the interrogatories seeking employment
information, as Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant answered all but subpart ‘c’” of each
interrogatory dealing with non-medical personnel and “all but subparts ‘c’, ‘g’, and ‘h’” of the
interrogatories dealing with medical personnel. Doc. 32 at 4-5. However, it appears that request
for production No. 2, which requests compensation documentation for all employees identified
in the interrogatories, is still in dispute. Doc. 32 at 8. Accordingly, the Court will deem the
issue not fully waived. The Court notes the great difficulty in parsing parties’ briefs this way,
and is dismayed with the lack of clarity surrounding which interrogatories and requests for
production remain disputed.
29 	Doc. 32 at 8.
30 	See e.g., Atkins v. UPMC Healthcare Bens. Trust, No. 2:13-CV-520, 2014 WL 1572439, at *2
(W.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2024) (finding incentive or reward structures discoverable but not
compensation documents) and Myers v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 581 F.Supp.2d 904,
914 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) (same); Carberry v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No 09-CV-02512, 2010 WL
1435543, at *3 (D. Colo Apr. 9, 2010) (allowing discovery into annual compensation of
reviewing doctors); Willoughby v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., No. 8:23-CV-1260, 2023 WL
9681217, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2023) (Noting that, “[i]n bad faith insurance claims, courts
often find documents regarding insurance employees’ ‘job performance, compensation,
evaluation, discipline, training, educational background, work duties and hours of work to be
relevant.’”) (quoting Wiggins v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., No. 3:16-CV-01142, 2017 WL 3720952,
at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 10, 2017); Sutter v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., No. 1-20-CV-974, 2022 WL
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 18

9
frequently hold that plaintiffs are entitled to discover whether there was “any type
of incentive, bonus, or reward program or system, formal or informal, for any
employee(s) involved in any meaningful way in reviewing [a plaintiff’s] disability
claims.”31 Some courts have held documents related to compensation need not be
produced but have allowed inquiry into such matters during depositions. 32
Here, Plaintiff has pled that Defendant denied her disability benefits without
examining 	her, 	instead 	having 	“paid 	medical 	reviewers,” 	namely 	third-party
physicians, deny her claim based on a review of her incomplete medical file. 33
Plaintiff has pled that Defendant “pressures claim personnel to terminate claims as
well as to deny appeals in order to reduce the amount of benefit paid” and that
“[e]mployees who save [Defendant] money by terminating or denying claims are
1611796, at *5 (S.D. Ohio, May 20, 2022) (Finding that “employee compensation plans and
incentive information are relevant and discoverable” but limiting it to employees directly
involved in the handling of the plaintiff’s claims).
31 	See, e.g., Atkins, 2014 WL 1572439, at *2; Solano-Sanchez v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,
No 19-4016, 2021 WL 229400, at *12 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2021) (Perkin, M.J.); Stallman v. First
Unum Life Ins. Co., No. 23-20975, 2025 WL 3749611, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 2025) (allowing
one interrogatory to address “whether the compensation or performance evaluations of First
Unum’s claims and medical personnel involved in plaintiff's LTD claim decision have been
based, during relevant time periods, in any respect on the outcome of their claims
determinations.”); Kalp v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 08-1005, 2009 WL 261189, at *7 (W.D.
Pa. Feb. 4, 2009).
32 	See Bay Point Turtlegrass Villas Ass’n v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 5:20-CV-176, 2021 WL
12135389, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2021) (Frank, M.J.) (“[A]t least one court has held that
allowing cross-examination of witnesses—including insurance adjusters or managing agents—
during their respective depositions would suffice. During such cross-examination, the plaintiff
could inquire about compensation.”) (citing to Buckley Towers Condominium v. QBE Ins.
Corp., No. 07-22988, 2008 WL 5505415, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2008) (Torres, M.J.)).
33 	Doc. 16 (Amend. Compl.) at 9-11.
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 18

10
more likely to be rewarded with bonuses compared with those who do not.” 34
However, 	Plaintiff’s 	explanation 	of 	the 	relevancy 	of 	purely 	compensation
information is minimal, at best; the only relevancy provided by Plaintiff of such
compensation information is whether Defendant “compensated employees for
denying or terminating claims.”35 Plaintiff does not explain what value it would
bring for her to discover the specific amounts that employees were compensated.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted only insofar as it seeks
to compel information related to “any type of incentive[s], bonus[es], or reward
program[s] or system[s], formal or informal, for any employee(s) involved in any
meaningful way in reviewing [Plaintiff’s] disability claims.” 36 This includes the non-
medical and medical personnel, such as insurance adjusters or reviewing physicians,
but is limited to “only those adjusters who actually handled some aspect of Plaintiff’s
claim.” 37 Defendant need not turn over documents solely related to compensation,
as it would be unduly burdensome for the slight probative value. Additionally,
34 	Id. at ¶¶ 47-48.
35 	Doc. 32 at 8.
36 	Atkins, 2014 WL 1572439, at *2; see also Solano-Sanchez, 2021 WL 229400, at *12 (“To the
extent that there are employee incentives to close out insureds' claims, or handle claims in a
particular manner, such information could reveal facts relevant to the motivations of the
employees who handled Plaintiff's claim.”).
It appears that Defendant may have already disclosed such information. See Doc. 34-1 at 10
(describing the produced documents relevant to incentives). To the extent that Defendant has
not produced documents explaining the pay structure of employees, this Memorandum
Opinion and subsequent Order serves to instruct them to do so.
37 	Allied World Assur. Co. v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 280 F.R.D. 197, 204 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (internal
quotation omitted).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 18

11
Plaintiff may still “pos[e] questions relating to potential witness bias—including
extent of compensation—at any deposition.” 38
2. 	“Batting Average” Information
Defendant additionally objects to Plaintiff’s request to discover, relating to
various medical personnel employees who review insurance claims, “the number of
claims reviewed from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023 and . . . of [the
reviewed claims], the number that were found to be supported by the medical
evidence in the record and the number that were not found supported by the medical
evidence in the records.” 39 Plaintiff claims that this information is “essential for
Plaintiff to understand the position, responsibilities, and claims handling history of
each of the Defendant’s employees who played a role in administering Plaintiff’s
claim.” 40 Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in
this matter, particularly regarding bad faith conduct by the Defendant.”41 Defendant
asserts that this “batting average” information is not probative and that production
of it would be unduly burdensome. 42 Specifically, Defendant argues that “the
information requested would require individual determinations on whether each
prior claim was correctly or wrongfully decided to even potentially be relevant and
38 	Bay Point Turtlegrass, 2021 WL 12135389, at *8.
39 	Doc. 34-3 (Exhibit A) at Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 28 and 29; Doc. 32 at
4-5.
40 	Doc. 32 at 5.
41 	Id.
42 	Doc. 34-1 at 11-12.
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 11 of 18

12
would basically require a mini-trial of each claim on why each claim was or was not
denied.” 43
The Third Circuit has waded in on the topic, affirming that the denial of such
discovery was not an abuse of discretion where the information sought would have
imposed a substantial burden on Defendant.44 The Third Circuit clarified that the
probative value of “batting average” information is “minimal at best” because “[a]
low reversal rate would not prove bias or a conflict of interest” without a
demonstration that “each of those decisions was unreasonable based on the evidence
in each file” and that doing so would, as noted above, “require a mini-trial on each
of these other appeals.” 45
Accordingly, “[g]iven the high cost of producing the evidence and its minimal
probative value,” Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of “batting average”
information, namely the amount of prior claims reviewed and the ratio of decisions
by medical personnel, is denied.
3. 	Review Policies and Procedures
Next, Defendant objects to interrogatories Nos. 4 and 11,46 which request
information regarding Defendant’s procedure for internal review of claims and
43 	Doc. 34-1 at 12.
44 	Reichard v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, 805 F. App’x 111, 116-17 (3d Cir.
2020).
45 	Id. at 117.
46 	Doc. 34-1 at 14.
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 12 of 18

13
whether the claims administration process is regularly reviewed to determine that
claims are being handled properly.47 Plaintiff asserts that this information is relevant
to Plaintiff’s claims, especially the bad faith claim, as it is “necessary to determine
if Defendant has implemented and maintained safeguards in its claims-handling
procedure.” 48
The internal process for claim review, and the supervisory structure for that
review process, are relevant to Plaintiff’s bad faith claims.49 Plaintiff’s requests for
information 	and 	document 	production 	related 	to 	Defendant’s 	policies 	and
procedures surrounding claim review is likely to lead to the discovery of relevant
evidence, especially as it relates to Plaintiff’s bad faith claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff
is entitled to discover the internal procedure for claim review and the supervisory
47 	Doc. 34-3 (Exhibit C) at Interrogatory Nos. 4, 11. While Defendant did not specifically
reference them in objecting, it appears that at least Interrogatory Nos. 13, 16, 20 & 23 as well
as Request for Production No. 12, address the same issue.
48 	Doc. 32 at 4-5.
49 	See Consugar v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., No. 3:10-CV-2084, 2011 WL 2360208, at *6-7
(M.D. Pa. June 9, 2011 (holding that the plaintiff may discover the defendant insurance
company’s training materials for claim agents, including policy manuals and instructions);
Barnard v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp., No. 3:18-CV-01218, 2019 WL 461510, at *3 (M.D. Pa.
Feb. 6, 2019) (Carlson, M.J.) (“[T]he policy or procedures that govern the way [Defendant’s]
employees handle inquiries about insurance policies is also relevant to the bad faith claim.”);
Kalp, 2009 WL 261189, at *8 (holding discoverable the “the procedures employed in the
evaluation of Plaintiff's claim” including “the identity of agreements, communications and/or
other documents related to [medical personnel] and other doctors . . . who were involved in the
review of Plaintiff's claim.”).
Neither party provided legal support for their positions on this information, and the Court is
once again left to sort through parties’ thin arguments. Should this matter continue, parties are
reminded that “[i]t is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal
way, leaving the court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh
on its bones.” United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 13 of 18

14
structure for agents, i.e. whether Defendant ensured its employees were accurate in
their claim assessments. However, to avoid unnecessary breadth, Defendants need
turn over only those review methods and supervisory procedures (or lack thereof) at
play 	in 	Plaintiff’s 	claim 	denial; 	Defendant 	need 	not 	produce 	documents 	or
information surrounding policies that are far afield from the issue at hand.
4. 	Third Party Medical Providers
Plaintiff also requests information related to the third-party medical examiner
Defendant frequently used to review claims: Dane Street, LLC (“Dane Street”). 50
Specifically, Plaintiff requests: Dane Street’s “batting average,” including the
number of prior claims reviewed and the ratio of those found to be meritorious;51 the
roles of Dane Street experts in composing and signing their medical reviews and
whether 	other 	people 	were 	involved 	in 	the 	process; 52 documents 	of 	“all
communications between Defendant and Dane Street, LLC, between 01/01/21 and
12/31/23”;53 all documents related to medical reviews done by certain Dane Street
medical personnel;54 and all documentation of payments made “by Defendant to
Dane 	Street, 	LLC, 	for 	medical 	reviews 	for 	the 	period 	of 	01/01/21 	through
12/31/23.”55
50 	Doc. 31-1 at Interrogatory Nos. 18, 19, 22, 29 and Request for Production of Documents No.
13.
51 	Doc. 32 at 6-7.
52 	Doc. 32 at 7-8.
53 	Doc. 32 at 9.
54 	Doc. 32 at 10.
55 	Doc. 32 at 10-11.
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 14 of 18

15
Defendant 	objects, 	again, 	on 	essentially 	every 	ground: 	“Plaintiff’s
interrogatories and requests for production surrounding Dane Street are vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the claims or defenses of
any party to this action and seeks confidential, proprietary business information
protected by third-party rights of privacy.” 56
The issues for the Dane Street requests mirror those addressed above with
little need for new analysis. First, Plaintiff is entitled to discover information relevant
to the decision-making process for her claim;57 this includes any information related
to Dane Street and its medical personnel’s role in that process. However, requiring
Defendant to produce “all communications between Defendant and Dane Street,
LLC, between 01/01/21 and 12/31/23” is unduly burdensome, especially when
Plaintiff has shown minimal, if any, relevance of this information to Plaintiff’s
claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted only to require
Defendant to produce the relevant information or documentation regarding the Dane
Street personnel’s role in Plaintiff’s claim denial.
Additionally, Defendant need not provide the “batting average” discovery that
Plaintiff seeks for the same reasons delineated supra; namely, limited probative
56 	Doc. 34-1 at 15.
57 	See Pietrangelo v. CAN Ins., No. 91-7235, 1992 WL 279347, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 1992)
(Powers, M.J.) (“Where, as here, a case involves an assertion of bad faith in the failure to settle
a claim, it is necessary for a plaintiff to know the substance of the investigation of the claim
including what went into the decision.”) (citing to Pete Rinaldi's Fast Foods, Inc. v. Great
American Insurance Companies, 123 F.R.D. 198 (M.D.N.C.1988)).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 15 of 18

16
value 	and 	undue 	burden. 58 However, 	Plaintiff 	may 	discover 	how 	Defendant
compensated Dane Street medical personnel, specifically whether there were any
type of “incentive[s], bonus[es], or reward program[s] or system[s], formal or
informal, for any employee(s) involved in any meaningful way in reviewing [a
plaintiff’s] disability claims.”59 Just as above, Defendant is not required to produce
documents solely related to the amount they compensated the Dane Street personnel,
nor is Defendant required to produce all documents of payments made to Dane Street
unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims; such requests are unduly burdensome in light of the
slight probative value. Even so, Plaintiff may “pos[e] questions relating to potential
witness bias—including extent of compensation—at any deposition.”60
5. 	Other Agency Investigations
Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks “all documentation regarding communications to
and from Defendant with any state or federal agency investigating Defendant’s
handling of long-term disability claims within the last ten years,” asserting that such
information is “relevant to Plaintiff’s allegation of bad faith conduct by Defendant
in handling her claim, since the Defendant has been investigated, warned, and/or
sanctioned for similar practices in the past by regulatory agencies.”61 In response,
Defendant objects on the grounds that the request is vague and ambiguous, that it is
58 	Reichard, 805 F. App’x at 117.
59 	See supra, note 31.
60 	Bay Point Turtlegrass, 2021 WL 12135389, at *8.
61 	Doc. 32 at 10.
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 16 of 18

17
overbroad in scope and time, that it would unduly burden Defendant, that it is
irrelevant to the action, and that it is privileged. 62
While Defendant’s objections may be generalized, it is clear that this request
is too broad; indeed, it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in scope. 63 As a large
insurance company, Defendant will certainly have been the subject of agency
investigations within the last ten years. Such a request would portend an immense
obligation for Defendant, a burden that far outweighs the slight probative value.
Defendant need not, and likely cannot, produce every inquiry that an agency has
made to it in the past decade. Therefore, Defendant will not be required to produce
such discovery. However, Plaintiff may, as with several other topics, inquire into the
matter during the relevant depositions.
6. 	Plaintiff’s Request to Serve Additional Interrogatories
Finally, Plaintiff requests leave of the Court to serve additional interrogatories
in excess of the normally proscribed 25.64 “Leave to serve additional interrogatories
may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).”65 The Court has
denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel with regards to various sought topics, and,
therefore, some interrogatories or requests for production need no longer be
62 	Doc. 34-1 at 18-19. Perhaps it would have been more efficient for Defendant to instead list the
objections it does not raise.
63 	Neither party has presented any legal support for their arguments that this information need
not or ought not be produced.
64 	Doc. 32 at 13-14.
65 	FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(1).
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 17 of 18

18
answered. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file additional interrogatories is
denied.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, consistent
with the rationale elucidated in this Memorandum Opinion. Plaintiff’s request to
serve additional interrogatories is denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-00590-MWB Document 36 Filed 02/12/26 Page 18 of 18