W.D. Kentucky· 4/30/2010
Mullins v. Prudential Insurance
Citations
- 267 F.R.D. 504
- 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52468
- 2010 WL 1802044
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the defendant’s “passing reference” to the existence of the administrative record was insufficient to answer interrogatory requesting facts to support the defendant’s affirmative defense
- finding that discovery of attorney’s fees that defendant sought to discover was “somewhat premature” and denying request for production of such information
- stating that production of materials regarding claims personnel training “would not appear to the Court to necessarily bear directly on any potential bias of those employees who were directly involved in the administration of Mullins’[s] own claim”
- noting the “essential question” is “what must a plaintiff in an ERISA [action] show in order to embark upon such a foray”
- noting the conclusion of district courts in Kentucky and Tennessee that Glenn “liberalized discovery to a degree” in ERISA cases
- requiring the defendant to produce any documents to which it “in its interrogatory responses referred ... outside the administrative record
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Whalin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Gluc v. Prudential Life Insurance Co. of AmericaW.D. Kentucky· 2015-08-05· cited 12×
- Kasko v. Aetna Life InsuranceE.D. Kentucky· 2014-07-21· cited 9×
- Myers v. Anthem Life InsuranceW.D. Kentucky· 2016-03-22· cited 7×
- Clark v. American Electric Power System Long Term Disability PlanW.D. Kentucky· 2012-07-02· cited 6×
- Mulligan v. Provident Life & Accident InsuranceE.D. Tennessee· 2011-01-07· cited 4×
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court· 1989-02-21· cited 6,595×
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court· 2008-06-19· cited 1,751×
- Bob G. Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. Life Insurance Company of North AmericaSixth Circuit· 1998-08-04· cited 535×
- Connie M. Miller v. Metropolitan Life Insurance CompanySixth Circuit· 1991-02-15· cited 349×
- Max W. Perry v. Simplicity Engineering, a Division of Lukens General Industries, Inc., a Delaware CorporationSixth Circuit· 1990-04-12· cited 301×
- Linda Gail Calvert v. Firstar Finance, Inc., F/k/a Star Bank Corporation, and Liberty Life Assurance Company of BostonFirst Circuit· 2005-05-17· cited 280×
- Unnamed caseSixth Circuit· 2006-08-07· cited 219×
- Richard Kalish v. Liberty Mutual/liberty Life Assurance Company of BostonSixth Circuit· 2005-08-18· cited 166×
- Sharon Bonds v. District of Columbia and Director, District of Columbia Department of CorrectionsD.C. Circuit· 1996-08-23· cited 160×
- In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust LitigationN.D. Illinois· 2005-08-26· cited 60×
- Rainbow Pioneer 44-18-04a, a General Partnership v. Hawaii-Nevada Investment Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, and Herman B. RothbardNinth Circuit· 1983-07-28· cited 40×
- Kendall v. Ges Exposition Services, Inc.D. Nevada· 1997-08-08· cited 39×
- Putney v. Medical MutualSixth Circuit· 2004-09-10· cited 26×
- Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, Inc.C.D. California· 2004-06-22· cited 26×
- In re G-I Holdings Inc.D. New Jersey· 2003-07-17· cited 25×
- United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles CountyE.D. California· 2006-05-12· cited 23×
- Myers v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaE.D. Tennessee· 2008-09-22· cited 22×
- Dunkin' Donuts Inc. v. N.A.S.T., Inc.N.D. Illinois· 2005-12-28· cited 18×
- Ginn v. Gemini Inc.D. Nevada· 1991-06-05· cited 18×
- McQueen v. Life Insurance Co. of North AmericaE.D. Kentucky· 2009-01-27· cited 13×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.