District Court Rejects Unum’s Boilerplate Discovery Objections and Allows Limited Incentive Discovery in ERISA Case Alleging Bad Faith

In Schaefer v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 4:24-CV-00590, 2026 WL 396445 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2026), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania addressed the scope of permissible discovery in an ERISA disability benefits case that included breach of contract, bad faith, and fiduciary duty claims.

The plaintiff alleged that Unum improperly terminated her long-term disability benefits and sought broad discovery into compensation structures, claims “batting averages,” supervisory procedures, third-party medical reviewers (Dane Street), and prior regulatory investigations. Unum responded with extensive “general objections” incorporated into nearly every response.

Boilerplate Objections Deemed Waived

The court held that Unum’s generalized, boilerplate objections—asserting overbreadth, privilege, irrelevance, burden, and similar grounds across the board—were improper and therefore waived. Citing Third Circuit authority, the court emphasized that objections must be specific and tied to particular discovery requests, not used as a blanket attempt to insulate large swaths of material from review.

The court also reminded the parties that when a defendant invokes Rule 33(d) and directs a plaintiff to business records (such as the claim file), the records must actually contain the requested information and be identified with sufficient specificity.

Compensation and Incentive Discovery: Limited but Permitted

The plaintiff sought compensation information for claims adjusters and medical reviewers, arguing it was relevant to allegations that Unum incentivized denials.

The court drew an important distinction:

• Not discoverable: Raw compensation amounts or broad compensation documents unrelated to incentive structures.
• Discoverable: Information regarding any incentive, bonus, or reward programs—formal or informal—applicable to employees who were meaningfully involved in reviewing the plaintiff’s claim.

Discovery was limited to those adjusters and medical personnel who actually handled some aspect of the plaintiff’s claim. The court found that wholesale production of compensation documents would be unduly burdensome given their limited probative value. However, the plaintiff could explore compensation-related bias in depositions.

“Batting Average” Discovery Rejected

The plaintiff also sought statistical data regarding the number of claims reviewed by medical personnel and the percentage denied or approved—a common “batting average” theory.

Relying on Third Circuit precedent, the court denied this request. It concluded that such data has minimal probative value absent mini-trials on each prior claim to determine whether those decisions were reasonable. Given the significant burden of compiling and contextualizing the data, the court refused to compel production.

Claims-Handling Policies and Supervision: Discoverable

The court granted discovery into Unum’s internal claims review procedures and supervisory structures, holding that such information was relevant to the plaintiff’s bad faith allegations.

However, discovery was limited to the policies and supervisory methods actually implicated in the plaintiff’s claim denial—not broader company-wide materials unrelated to her case.

Third-Party Medical Reviewer (Dane Street)

The plaintiff sought wide-ranging discovery concerning Dane Street, including communications, payment records, and statistical outcomes.

The court largely mirrored its earlier rulings:

• No “batting average” discovery.
• No broad production of all communications over multiple years.
• Yes to discovery concerning Dane Street’s role in the plaintiff’s claim.
• Yes to information about incentive or bonus structures affecting medical reviewers involved in the claim.

Again, the court declined to require production of generalized payment records, finding the burden outweighed the marginal relevance.

Regulatory Investigations: Overbroad and Denied

The plaintiff sought all communications with any state or federal agency investigating Unum’s handling of long-term disability claims over the past ten years.

The court found the request vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. As a large insurer, Unum would likely have numerous regulatory interactions, and compelling production of all such communications would impose a disproportionate burden relative to the limited probative value. The request was denied, though the plaintiff could explore the issue in depositions.

No Additional Interrogatories

Finally, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to exceed the 25-interrogatory limit under Rule 33, noting that several discovery topics had already been denied.

Why This Decision Matters

Schaefer reinforces several recurring themes in ERISA litigation:

1. Boilerplate objections remain disfavored and can be deemed waived.
2. Incentive and bonus structures tied to claim outcomes are generally discoverable when limited to personnel involved in the claimant’s file.
3. “Batting average” statistical discovery continues to face significant judicial resistance.
4. Courts will tailor discovery to the handling of the specific claim at issue, rejecting sweeping company-wide requests.

For ERISA practitioners, this opinion provides a practical roadmap for both crafting targeted discovery requests and defending against overbroad ones in disability benefit termination cases.