Free Declaration - 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 (AZ#014226) DANIEL L. BONNETT (AZ#014127) JENNIFER KROLL (AZ#019859) MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2517 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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, 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. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS Declaration of Jennifer Kroll in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Conduct Additional Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Jennifer Kroll, affirm under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am an attorney for the Plaintiffs in the above entitled action. I am

fully familiar with the file in this case. I am of legal age, under no legal disability and if called as a witness could competently testify to the matters set forth herein from my own personal knowledge.

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 374

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 1 of 5

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

2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of Plaintiffs

Second Set of Interrogatories which was served on Defendants on November 15, 2005. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of Defendants

response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories received on March 23, 2006. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and accurate copy of Defendants

Initial Disclosures received on July 5, 2006. 5. On November 15, 2006, Plaintiffs served Notices of Rule 30(b)(6)

Deposition on Defendants. True and accurate copies of Plaintiffs Notices of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition are attached hereto as Exhibit D. After several discussions with Defendants in attempts to resolve disputes about the Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, on February 28, 2007, Plaintiffs served an Amended Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition. A true and accurate copy of the Notice is attached as Exhibit E hereto. 6. (Doc. 287.) 7. During the pendency of the partial settlement negotiations and in On March 20, 2007, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Craig Chapman.

response to Defendants claimed need to prepare for the depositions, the depositions were continued. 8. In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants have claimed that

the 1984 letter and brochures, the May 1984 Summary Plan Description and/or the 1996 Summary Plan Description each triggered the running of the statute of limitations. As set forth in Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants motion, Plaintiffs do not believe that any of these documents triggered the running of the statute of limitations and are therefore irrelevant. 9. However, if the Court finds that the 1984 letter and brochures, the May

1984 Summary Plan Description and the 1996 Summary Plan Description could have

2

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 374

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 2 of 5

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

triggered the running of the statute of limitations, although Plaintiffs have diligently pursued discovery on these issues, (see ¶ 1-7, supra & Exh. A-E), Plaintiffs do not yet have affidavits or other admissible evidence available to respond to Defendants contentions regarding the method, manner and recipients of communications upon which Defendants have relied for their motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations, and accordingly, cannot respond to certain portions of Defendants statements of fact in support of Defendants motion. 10. Plaintiffs intend to explore in discovery the method and manner of

communications and recipients of communications. Plaintiffs believe that if the Court determines that the January 1984 letter and brochures, the May 1984 SPD and/or the 1996 SPD are relevant, Plaintiffs may establish genuine issues of material fact with respect to Defendants motion for summary judgment after further discovery. 11. Plaintiffs expect to conduct the depositions and additional discovery

after the Partial Settlement becomes final in accordance with the scheduling order, (Doc. 322 p. 3 ¶ F), and believe that if the Court does not grant Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations and if the Court determines that the documents relied on by Defendants are relevant to the statute of limitations, Plaintiffs, after conducting depositions and additional discovery, will have evidence necessary to respond to portions of Defendants motion for summary judgment that address the method, manner and recipients of communications of the documents relied on by Defendants. 12. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that, to the extent the Court

determines not to grant Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment or does not deny Defendants motion for summary judgment, a ruling on Defendants motion for summary judgment be continued under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted this 11th day of January, 2008.
3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 374

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 3 of 5

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 4

s/Jennifer Kroll Jennifer Kroll

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 374

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 4 of 5

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 11, 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 the Following CM/ECF registrants: David B. Rosenbaum Dawn L. Dauphine Osborn Maledon, P.A. 2929 North Central Ave., Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Michael Banks Azeez Hayne Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Howard Shapiro Proskauer Rose LLP 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112 Amy Covert Proskauer Rose LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark , NJ 07102-5211 Christopher Landau Eleanor R. Barrett Craig Primis Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Attorneys for the Defendants s/.J. Kroll

5

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 374

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 5 of 5