Steven P. Laitin v. Unum Group, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona resolves several discovery disputes in Steven P. Laitin’s bad-faith disability insurance action against Unum Group and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company. The court grants requests for the NaviLink audit trail and summary statistics concerning medical reviewers, while denying requests concerning personnel evaluations, review guidelines, reviewer compensation, and an Assistant Vice President deposition.

Holdings

1. The request for performance evaluations from January 2023 to the present was denied because the records were not shown to be relevant and a two-year sweep of personnel files was not proportional to the needs of the case.
2. Unum was required to produce the NaviLink audit trail for Laitin's claim, subject to redactions for work-product concerns.
3. The request for letters of understanding, guidelines, and instructions concerning medical-record reviews from 2020 to the present was denied because the six-year sweep was disproportionate and Unum's targeted production was sufficient.
4. The request for three years of Turner's salary, bonuses, and incentive targets was denied because her compensation was not shown to be tied to claim outcomes and therefore was not relevant to the bad-faith claim.
5. Unum was required to provide aggregate statistics showing the number of disability-file reviews performed by Turner and Kevin Kohan from 2023 onward and the number in which they determined that a claimant could work.
6. Unum was required to provide the total number of assessments Kohan performed on Unum disability claims and the total number of claims referred to him from 2023 onward.
7. The request to depose Unum's assistant vice president was denied because the officer had no involvement in Laitin's claim and the requested information concerning tracking reports and claims metrics could be obtained from Director Berryman, who worked on the claim and would be deposed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether personnel evaluations of employees involved in Laitin's claim were relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
2. Whether Unum must produce the NaviLink audit trail showing who accessed Laitin's claim file and when, subject to work-product redactions.
3. Whether Unum must produce historical guidelines, instructions, and training materials concerning medical-record reviews.
4. Whether compensation information for medical reviewer Katrina Turner was relevant absent evidence that her compensation was tied to claim outcomes.
5. Whether aggregate statistics concerning medical reviewers' disability-file reviews and work-capacity determinations were relevant and proportional.
6. Whether summary figures concerning the number of assessments performed by and referrals made to reviewer Kevin Kohan were discoverable as evidence of business relationship, bias, or financial incentive.
7. Whether Laitin could depose Unum's assistant vice president despite that officer's lack of involvement in Laitin's claim.

Disposition

other