District Court Denies Plaintiff’s Application for Protective Order in ERISA Disability Benefits Dispute

In Arrabito v. First Unum Life Ins. Co. et al., No. 1:24-CV-05054-GHW-JW, 2025 WL 485395 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2025), the court considered a discovery dispute in a matter involving a denied long-term disability claim. The dispute was primarily about the terms of a protective order to govern the handling of confidential information during the discovery process.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff argued for the adoption of a specific protective order previously accepted in similar ERISA cases involving the same defendants. The plaintiff’s counsel regularly litigates against the defendants and seeks similar discovery related to conflicts of interest in many cases. They contended that the discovery obtained from one ERISA case often becomes relevant in others, making it efficient to retain and use confidential information across cases. The proposed protective order included provisions that allowed the plaintiff’s counsel to retain confidential information for use in concurrent and subsequent litigation, under continued protections.

The plaintiff underscored that the defendants had agreed to similar protective orders in various federal cases in different jurisdictions, citing multiple examples from Tennessee and Georgia. The plaintiff argued that there was no reasonable basis for the defendants to dispute the entry of such an order in this case, especially given the consistency with which it had been applied elsewhere.

Defendants’ Argument

On the other side, the defendants sought a protective order modeled after the standard form used in the Southern District of New York. They insisted that this standard form was adequate for protecting confidential materials in the district and argued against loosening the protections typically afforded. The defendants pointed out that while they had agreed to the plaintiff’s proposed protective order in other jurisdictions, they had not done so in this district, emphasizing the need for consistency in handling confidential materials according to local practices.

The defendants referenced a similar request in another case, Smith v. First Unum, where a request to adopt the plaintiff’s proposed protective order was denied. They argued that the standard form used in this district sufficed for the needs of the case and urged the court to adopt their version to maintain consistency and reliability in managing confidential documents.

Judge’s Decision

Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the joint motion for resolving the discovery dispute without prejudice, meaning the parties could renew their motion with another judge. The case was referred to Judge Willis for general pretrial matters and dispositive motions. Judge Woods did not make a substantive decision on which protective order to adopt but left the door open for further proceedings on the matter.

In summary, this case highlights the complexities of discovery disputes, particularly in ERISA litigation, where the handling of confidential information can significantly impact the efficiency and cost of legal processes. The parties’ arguments underscore the balance between maintaining consistent local practices and adapting to broader litigation strategies that span multiple jurisdictions.