United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Southern Division, London
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DANNY C. REEVES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is pending for consideration of Plaintiff John Brainard’s motion to compel Defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (“Liberty”) to answer the plaintiff’s interrogatories. [Record No. 29] Having reviewed Brainard’s motion and Liberty’s response, the Court will grant a portion of the relief sought. A reply is not needed for this purpose.
I. Relevant Facts
Brainard was covered through his former employer, Community Trust Bancorp, Inc., under a group disability income policy governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Brainard claims that he became disabled on September 17, 2011. Accordingly, he filed a request for long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits with Liberty, Community Trust’s policy administrator and provider of coverage. [Record No. 32, p. 1-2] On July 22, 2013, Liberty terminated Brainard’s LTD benefits. [Record No. 1, p. 4]
Brainard filed this action on May 14, 2014, alleging that Liberty improperly denied his claim. He contends that the decision to deny his claim was influenced by a conflict of interest. [Record No. 29-1, p. 4] On September 19, 2014, Brainard served the defendant with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Liberty responded to this on October 22, 2014. The defendant’s responses included a number of objections that the parties have been unable to resolve. As a result, the plaintiff now moves the Court to compel answers to the following interrogatories:
Interrogatory No. 1: State the name of the person answering these Interrogatories on behalf of Defendant, the position held with Defendant, the length of time said person has held such position, and the job duties of said position.
Interrogatory No. 2: Identify all other persons with whom you have conferred in answering any of these interrogatories and, for each person so identified, state the position held with Defendant and the job duties of said position.
[Record No. 29-1, p. 1]
Additionally, with respect to Doctors Terry Troutt, Ellen Ballard, Sanjay Chadigiri, and Howard Gratton, the plaintiff moves the Court to compel answers to the following:
. . . state the following information for the five (5) year period preceding the performance of the medical review of Plaintiff’s claim for benefits and up through the present:
a. The number of claims for which Defendant has retained said doctor or any company employing or using said doctor, to perform a review to determine if a claimant is “disabled” or has a “disability.”
b. The number of times said doctor has opined that the claimant is “disabled” or has a “disability.”
c. The number of times said doctor has determined that the claimant is not “disabled” or does not have a “disability.”
d. The amount of money paid by Defendant to said doctor, or any company employing him as a consultant or reviewer, for the performance of medical reviews and/or the ...