Free Stipulation - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Susan Martin, Atty, No. 014226 Daniel L. Bonnett, Atty. No. 014127 Jennifer Kroll, Atty, No. 019859 Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 1720 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2517 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs David B. Rosenbaum, Atty. No. 009819 Dawn L. Dauphine, Atty. No. 010833 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Telephone: (602) 640-9000 [email protected] [email protected] Michael L. Banks, Pro Hac Vice Azeez Hayne, Pro Hac Vice MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 [email protected] [email protected] Amy Covert, Pro Hac Vice PROSKAUER ROSE LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 274-3258 [email protected]

Christopher Landau, P.C., Pro Hac Vice Craig S. Primis, P.C., Pro Hac Vice Eleanor R. Barrett, Pro Hac Vice KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-5793 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Howard Shapiro, Pro Hac Vice PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112-4017 Telephone: (504) 310-4088 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Barbara Allen, Richard Dippold, Melvin Jones, Donald McCarty, Richard Scates and Walter G. West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS DATA AND EXPERT STIPULATION

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 414

Filed 03/25/2008

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Capitalized terms are defined in the Partial Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 312, Exhibit A)
2
1

vs. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, and Plan Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Defendants. The parties in the above matter, through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS the parties have engaged in significant discovery, including the provision of millions of pages of benefit files and data; WHEREAS the parties desire to avoid duplicative and unnecessary work of the experts in this case; WHEREAS the parties further wish to limit the scope of expert discovery; NOW THEREFORE the parties do hereby stipulate as follows: Data Stipulation 1. The parties agree that there are approximately 15,200 Participants that may be

affected by the Three Remaining Claims.1 2. The parties have undertaken extensive efforts to collect data from all reasonably

available sources, and agree that the data for the Participants entered in the Excel database reflects those efforts. Data for approximately 13,700 Participants has been entered into the Excel database. Defendants have identified approximately 500 persons to be checked to determine whether they have already been entered into the Excel

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 414

Filed 03/25/2008

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

database, or if not, whether they are affected Participants who should be entered. To the extent they should be entered, they will be added to the Excel database to be produced by Monday, March 31, 2008. 3. Defendants agree to provide Plaintiffs the Excel database by Monday, March 31,

2008, together with sufficient information to identify and explain the data columns or categories of information and any abbreviations used in the Excel database, while Plaintiffs agree that no further discovery is needed on information needed to prepare their expert report or reports (what the parties have referred to as Tier One discovery). 4. The parties agree that this data and Excel database is reliable, admissible, and

may be used by either party s expert for purposes of his report and opinions, and each party further agrees that they cannot attack the data and Excel database for any reason, including any claim that it is inaccurate or incomplete. In the event the parties discover a material error or omission in the data, the parties agree to work in good faith to correct any such error or omission and, in the event they cannot agree, either party is free to bring such dispute to the Court. Nothing herein prohibits any expert from extrapolating from this data or Excel database, e.g., to adjust the calculations derived from the approximately 13,700 Participants (as adjusted by any additions) entered in the Excel database to reflect that there are approximately 15,200 Participants that may be affected by the Three Remaining Claims. 5. So that there is no doubt, the parties note that nothing herein prohibits attacks on

an expert s reasoning or methodology, including any extrapolations, conclusions, or inferences drawn from the data or Excel database, nor is any party precluded from filing
3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 414

Filed 03/25/2008

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Daubert or other motions to exclude or to limit an expert s testimony or report. 6. The Excel database contains information identifying who are actives, retired, and

deferred vested, as of March 17, 2008. 7. The parties disagree to what extent pre-1984 compensation data should be

relevant to the experts reports: Plaintiffs contend it should be relevant in all cases; Defendants contend it should be relevant only to the extent it was included in the final benefit calculation as part of the final average pay calculation. Without conceding the correctness of this reasoning, Defendants agree that Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement the Excel database with pre-1984 compensation data provided them in a March 2006 production, and provided to Defendants electronically on March 19, 2008, in an Excel file entitled RecordID3-Pay Records. Defendants reserve their right to attack the relevancy of the data, including through any Daubert motion if applicable, but agree not to attack the accuracy or reliability of this data. Both parties recognize that this data may be incomplete. Nothing herein prohibits either party s expert from extrapolating from this data to the extent it is incomplete, and nothing herein prohibits attacks on an expert s reasoning or methodology, including any extrapolations, conclusions, or inferences drawn from this data. Expert Stipulation 8. The parties agree that expert-related discovery in these proceedings will be

governed by this stipulation. To the extent that this stipulation imposes limitations on discovery which otherwise would be available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have agreed to such limitations. This stipulation does not imply
4

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 414

Filed 03/25/2008

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that any of the information restricted from discovery in this stipulation would otherwise be discoverable. This stipulation applies to all prior and future work of the parties experts. 9. The parties will make all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), as modified or

limited by this stipulation, at the times that the Court has required or may require for the service of written expert reports. 10. There will be no discovery of any of the following unless the expert or any

witness chooses to consider such materials in their testimony, written declarations, affidavits, or final report:

a.

any and all communications and work product concerning this matter with or by the expert and a party or counsel for the party offering the testimony of such expert witness, or within the expert s organization; drafts of the final report prepared by, for or at the direction of an expert witness; or the expert s or the expert s firm s work product on this matter.

b.

c.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of March, 2008. MARTIN AND BONNETT OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

By: s/ Susan Martin By: s/David B. Rosenbaum Susan Martin David B. Rosenbaum Daniel L. Bonnett Dawn L. Dauphine Jennifer Kroll Osborn Maledon, P.A. 3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 1720 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael L. Banks Azeez Hayne MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
5

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 414

Filed 03/25/2008

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Howard Shapiro PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112-4017 Amy Covert PROSKAUER ROSE LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5211 Christopher Landau, P.C. Craig S. Primis, P.C. Eleanor R. Barrett KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-5793 Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do certify that on March 25, 2008, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF registrants. s/ J. Kroll

6

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 414

Filed 03/25/2008

Page 6 of 6