Amanda Martin v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Cleveland

── Amanda Martin v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Cleveland ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0134p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ AMANDA MARTIN, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 25-3518 │ v. │ │ FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND; MATRIX │ ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.; LONG TERM DISABILITY │ INCOME PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL │ RESERVE SYSTEM, │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:23-cv-01564—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge. Decided and Filed: May 7, 2026 Before: GIBBONS, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Andrew S. November, LINER LEGAL LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, Eric S. McDaniel, Matthew J. Kasper, MALYUK MCDANIEL KASPER LLC, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, for Appellant. Dustin M. Dow, Lauren T. Stuy, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. _________________ OPINION _________________ JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Amanda Martin filed this lawsuit after unsuccessfully appealing the denial of long-term disability benefits pursuant to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s disability income plan. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland  No. 25-3518 Martin v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Cleveland, et al. Page 2 (the Bank) named Matrix Absence Management, Inc. (Matrix), as administrator of the Bank’s Long Term Disability Income Plan for Employees of the Federal Reserve System (the Plan). Martin, who experienced symptoms associated with long-haul COVID-19, filed a claim for benefits under the Plan. Matrix denied her claim and Martin appealed that denial. Following its review on appeal, Matrix issued Martin a final denial. Martin then sued the Bank, Matrix, and the Plan in federal district court. Because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not cover governmental plans administered by agencies of the United States, Martin brought breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the defendants. See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(1). In the course of this litigation, Martin moved for the district court to permit discovery outside of the administrative record, but the court denied her motion. Martin subsequently moved for the district court to permit limited discovery outside of the administrative record, but the court denied most of her requests. The defendants and Martin moved for judgment on the administrative record. The district court granted judgment on the administrative record for the defendants and denied Martin’s motion. Martin appealed from the district court’s judgment and the court’s two orders denying her discovery. We affirm the district court because it properly applied the relevant legal standards, denied Martin’s requests for discovery, and determined that Matrix did not arbitrarily deny Martin long-term disability (LTD) benefits pursuant to the Plan. I. Martin bega