Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
Legal Summary of Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims and Appeal, Maintained in Covington & Burling's files Shea (Doc. 225, Exhibit C ¶ 18, 20)
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration N/A Covington & Burling attorneys Attorney-Client Privilege
7
10/14/2003
9
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the document. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants. Draft Legal Summary of Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims and Appeal w/ Covington & Burling attorney's notes, maintained in Covington & Burling's files.
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration N/A Covington & Burling attorneys Attorney-Client Privilege
8
Shea 10/14/2003 (Doc. 225, Exhibit C ¶ 18, 20)
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
10 Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the document. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' s Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 1 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
9
9/26/2003
O'Neill (Doc. 225 Exhibit B ¶ 23, 24)
11
Email String re: Discussion of Legal Strategic Issues Regarding Anticipated Litigation In The Ninth Circuit Regarding Plaintiffs' Claim That The 1984 Brochure Was The Plan Document And Litigation Strategy re: Same 9/26/2003 From R. Shea, Esq. to H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: K. Covert, Esq., J. Vine, Esq., J. Huvelle, Esq., J. Ryan, Esq.; 9/26/2003 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to J. Vine, Esq., R. Shea, Esq.; cc: K. Covert, Esq.; 9/26/2003 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to R. Shea, Esq., J. Vine, Esq.; cc: K. Covert, Esq., See Description K. Adams.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
See Description
Work Product; Attorney-Client Privilege
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
2
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 2 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
10
9/22/2003
Denlinger (Doc. 225, Exh. D ¶ 2); O'Neill (Doc 225, Exh. B ¶ 25)
13
Email String re: Legal Analysis of See Description Plaintiffs' Claims Regarding: Effective Date of Plan Amendments September 22, 2003 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to R. Shea Esq.; cc: J. Vine, Esq., K. Denlinger 9/19/2003 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to R. Shea, Esq.; cc: J. Vine, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
Attorney -Client Document predating Privilege, Settlor denial of Plaintiffs' Function Issue. appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matter of Plan administration; Settlor Privilege, if any, waived by Honeywell's disclosure of documents to counsel (R. Shea, J. Vine) for the Plan handling Plaintiffs' claims and to Plan actuary (K. Denlinger)
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
3
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 3 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
11
9/22/2003
Huvelle (Doc. 225, Exh. I ¶ 3,4)
14
Email String From J. Huvelle, Esq. See Description to J. Ryan, Esq. Requesting Litigation Perspective Regarding Analysis of Board Resolutions and Delegation of Authority, and J. Ryan, Esq.'s Response to J. Huvelle, Esq. re: Same 9/22/2003 From J. Ryan, Esq. to J. Huvelle, Esq. 9/22/2003 From J. Huvelle, Esq. to J. Ryan, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
4
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 4 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
12
9/16/2003
Shea (Doc. 225, Exhibit C y¶ 18,22)
16
Email re: Legal Analysis of Draft Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Appeal
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
R. Shea, Esq.
J. Ryan, Esq.
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matter of Plan administration;
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
5
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 5 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
13
8/19/2003
Sandstrom (Doc. 225, Exhibit H ¶ 4,5)
17
Notes re: Attorney-Client Privileged Conference Regarding Litigating Plaintiffs' Anti- Cutback Claims in Particular Federal Court Circuits, Maintained in Covington & Burling's files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Covington & Work Product; Document predating Burling attorneys Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
6
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 6 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
14
8/6/2003
Shea (Doc. 225, Exhibit C ¶ [ 18, 23)
18
Notes re: Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims and Meeting with S. Martin, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling attorneys
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration;
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
7
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 7 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
19
4/17/2003
No supporting declaration provided
27
Notes of Conference re: Plaintiffs' Claims, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Covington & Work Product; Document predating Burling attorneys Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; (Matters of Plan administration No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated; litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
8
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 8 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
28
2/3/2003
Sandstrom (Doc 225, Exh. H ¶ 4, 8)
37
Memo re: Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims in Preparation for Settlement Conference and Settlement of Plaintiffs' Claims (Defendants' First Privilege Log described this document as a "Memo re: Analysis of Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims")
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
R. Shea, Esq., J. Vine, Esq.
G. Sandstrom, Esq.
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation. This document concerned settlement negotiations with Plaintiffs' counsel.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
9
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 9 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
31
10/9/2002
Denlinger (Doc. 225 Exh. D ¶ 46), O'Neill (Doc 225, Exh. B ¶ 23, 26)
46
Email String re: Information re: Plaintiffs' Claims 10/9/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to C. Burnelko 10/9/2002 From C. Burnelko to H. O'Neill, Esq., K. Mathis, M. Gangone, M. Holic, J. Payne, S. Williams, K. Denlinger 9/25/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to K. Mathis, M. Gangone, M. Holic, C. Burnelko, J. Payne, S. Williams, K. Denlinger
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
` See Description
See Description
Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn; Waiver of privilege, if any, by disclosure to Plan Actuary (K. Denlinger) and to low level employee (J. Payne)
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
10
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 10 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
32
10/8/2002
Vine (Doc. 225, Exh. E ¶ 3, 5)
47
Email String re: Legal Evaluation See Description of Plaintiffs' Claims re: Management Fees, Alleged Violations of 204(h), and For Penalties under 502(c) For Purposes of Audit Letter Response 10/8/2002 From J. Vine, Esq. to K. Covert, Esq.; cc: M. Gangone, J. Huvelle, Esq., R. Shea, Esq. 10/8/2002 From K. Covert, Esq. to J. Vine, Esq.; cc: M. Gangone
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
11
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 11 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
33
9/12/2002
Sonnenschein (Doc. 225, Exh. J, ¶ 3)
52
Legal Memo re: Statute of Limitations Applicable to Plaintiffs' Claims
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
J. Huvelle, Esq., E. Sonnenschein, Esq. R. Shea, Esq., J. Vine, Esq.
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
12
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 12 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
34
9/11/2002
Vine (Doc. 225, Exh. E ¶ 3,6), 53 O'Neill (Doc- 225, Exh. B ¶ 23)
See Description Email String re: Information Requested To Evaluate and Defend Against Litigation Over Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims 9/11/2002 From J. Vine, Esq. to H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: J. Huvelle, Esq.; R. Shea, Esq. 9/10/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to J. Vine, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
13
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 13 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
35
9/11/2002
Vine (Doc. 225, Exh. E ¶ 3,6), O'Neill (Doc 225, Exh. B ¶ 23)
54
See Description Email String re: Information Requested To Evaluate and Defend Against Litigation Over Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims 9/11/2002 From J. Vine, Esq. to H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: J. Huvelle, Esq.; R. Shea, Esq. 9/10/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to J. Vine, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
14
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 14 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
36
9/10/2002
Vine (Doc. 225, Exh. E ¶ 3,6), O'Neill (Doc. 225, Exh. B ¶ 23)
55
See Description Email String re: Information Requested To Evaluate and Defend Against Litigation Over Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims 9/11/2002 From J. Vine, Esq. to H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: J. Huvelle, Esq.; R. Shea, Esq. 9/10/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to J. Vine, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
Work Product; Document predating Attorney Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
15
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 15 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
37
9/10/2002
Vine (Doc. 225, Exh. E ¶ 3,6), O'Neill (Doc. 225, Exh. B ¶ 23)
56
See Description Email String re: Information Requested To Evaluate and Defend Against Litigation Over Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims 9/11/2002 From J. Vine, Esq. to H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: J. Huvelle, Esq.; R. Shea, Esq. 9/10/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to J. Vine, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
16
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 16 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
38
9/5/2002
Denlinger (Doc. 225, Exh. D ¶ 57), Vine (Doc. 225, Exh. E ¶ 3,7), O'Neill (Doc. 225, Exh. B ¶ 23)
57
Email String re: Potential Class Action Lawsuit re: SBA Offset 9/5/2002 From J. Vine, Esq. to J. Huvelle, Esq., R. Shea, Esq. 9/4/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to J. Vine, Esq., K. Denlinger 9/4/2002 From I. Abraham to J. Vine, Esq., K. Denlinger; cc: H. O'Neill, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
See Description
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn; Waiver of privilege by disclosure to Plan Actuary (K. Denlinger)
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
17
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 17 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
39
8/23/2002
Vine (Doc. 225, Exh. E ¶ 3,8)
58
Legal Memo re: Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims w/ R. Shea, Esq.'s notes
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
Honeywell
J. Vine Esq.
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; `Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration;
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
18
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 18 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
40
8/22/2002
Vine (Doc. 225, Exh. E ¶ 3,9)
59
Legal Memo re: Summary of Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims and Copy of Same With R. Shea, Esq.'s notes
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
Honeywell
J. Vine, Esq.
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration;
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
19
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 19 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
41
10/4/2001
O'Neill (Doc. 225, Exhibit B ¶ 26, 27)
64
See Description Email String re: Potential Litigation With Retirees re: SBA Offset 10/4/2001 From H. O'Neill, Esq. to M. Gangone 10/3/2001 From K. Mathis to J. Greenman, Esq., K. Covert, Esq., H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: B. Marcotte 10/2/2001 From C. Chapman to B. Marcotte, K. Mathis, J. Payne, S. Yamasaki, A. Clarke, M. Rojas
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Work Product; Fiduciary Exception Attorney-Client Applies -- Matter of Plan administration; No merit Privilege to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn; Waiver of privilege, if any, by providing it to low level (J. Payne) and "other Honeywell employees" (Doc. 225, Exh. B ¶ 27)
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
20
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 20 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
43
7/18/1989
No supporting declaration provided
68
Memo re: Compliance and Plan Amendments w/ R. Shea, Esq.'s notes Maintained by Covington & Burling
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
W. Jacobsen, Esq.
Attorney-Client Work Privilege, Product, Settlor Function Issue.
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Fiduciary Exception applies; Matter of Plan administration (authored by former Plan counsel at O'Melveny & Myers); No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn; Settlor Privilege, if any, waived by Honeywell's disclosure of documents to counsel (R. Shea) for the Plan handling Plaintiffs' claims
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
21
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 21 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
44
2/10/1984
No supporting declaration provided
70
B. Arms, Esq.; R. Rauch; A. Garcia; Summary of Defendants' Reasons For M Stem, Esq.; Privilege: D. Freundlich; T. Wilburton; Fiduciary exception does not apply W. Coffey; because Settlor Function. F. Morgan; R. Barone; L. Carbone; J. McLeod; D. Gordon, Esq.; G. Howland
Letter Enclosing Draft Retirement Plan For Comment
D. Duff, Esq.; K. Ryan, Esq.; Debevoise & Plimpton
Attorney-Client Fiduciary exception Privilege, Settlor applies; Matters of Plan Function Issue. administration; (Plan was purportedly amended on February 4, 1984; this document created 10 days later must relate to administration); Settlor Privilege, if any, waived by providing it to low level employees (i.e, F. Morgan, identified as "Signal employee") and by Honeywell's disclosure of documents to counsel for the Plan handling Plaintiffs' claims Attorney-Client Fiduciary exception Privilege, Settlor applies; Matters of Plan Function Issue. administration; Settlor Privilege, if any, waived by Honeywell's disclosure of documents to counsel for the Plan handling Plaintiffs' claims
45
10/28/1983 Gordon (Doc. 225, Exh. G ¶ 3-5)
71
Legal Memo re: Options For Restructuring the Garrett Severance Plan In Connection With Restructuring The Garrett Corp. Retirement Plan
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
Garrett
D. Gordon, Esq.
Fiduciary exception does not apply because Settlor Function.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
22
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 22 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
46
6/15/1983
Gordon (Doc. 225, Exh.G ¶ 3,4)
72
Legal Memo re: Potential Amendments to the Garrett Severance Plan with Cover Letter
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
J. Milligan
D. Gordon, Esq.
Fiduciary exception does not apply because Settlor Function.
Attorney-Client Fiduciary exception Privilege, Settlor applies; Matter of Plan Function Issue. administration; Settlor Privilege, if any, waived by disclosure of documents to "two actuaries...who routinely worked with the Company on the Severance and Retirement Plans..." (Gordon Decl. ¶ 4) and by disclosure to counsel for the Plan handling Plaintiffs' claims
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
23
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 23 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
47
undated
Shea (Doc. 225, Exhibit C ¶ 5, 7, 13)
73
Draft Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Claims And Defenses To Those Claims For Purposes of Litigation
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
R. Shea, Esq.
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Work Product; Document predating Attorney-Client decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary Privilege exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
24
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 24 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
48
undated
Shea (Doc. 225, Exhibit C ¶ 5, 7, 14)
74
Chart re: Amendments to Retirement and Severance Plans Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
R. Shea, Esq.
Work Product; Attorney-Client Privilege; Settlor Function
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants and advice was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; No merit to Defendants' claim of anticipated litigation as claims were still in process and some were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor or withdrawn
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
25
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 25 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
50
undated
Sandstrom (Doc. 225, Exhibit H ¶ 4, 14)
77
Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims with Covington & Burling attorney's notes, Maintained in Covington & Burling `s Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling attorney
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
26
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 26 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
51
undated
Sandstrom (Doc. 225, Exhibit H ¶ 4,5)
78
Attorney Notes re: Legal Analysis of Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Claims, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling attorney
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
27
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 27 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
53
undated
Shea (Doc. 225, Exhibit C ¶ 5, 18 25)
82
Legal Summary of Plaintiffs' Arguments In Administrative Appeal, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling attorney
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
28
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 28 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
54
undated
Sandstrom (Doc. 225, Exh. H ¶ 3,4, 10)
83
Notes re: Legal Analysis of Proposed Regulations and Relevant Provisions of the Retirement and Severance Plans, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling Attorney
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
29
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 29 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
55
undated
Sandstrom (Doc. 225, Exh. H ¶ 3,4,13)
84
Notes re: Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Administrative Appeal, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling attorney
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
30
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 30 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
56
undated
Sandstrom (Doc. 225, Exh. H ¶ 3,4,13)
85
Notes re: Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Administrative Appeal, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling attorney
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
31
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 31 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
57
undated
Shea (Doc. 225, Exhibit C ¶ 18,26)
86
Notes re: Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Claims re: Annuity Conversion Factor and Credited Interest Rate, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling attorney
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
32
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 32 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
58
undated
Sandstrom (Doc. 225, Exh. H ¶ 3,4,11)
87
Draft Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Claims And Defenses To Those Claims For Purposes of Litigation with Covington & Burling attorney's notes, Maintained in Covington & Burling's Files
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
N/A
Covington & Burling attorney
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
33
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 33 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Reference in Supporting Declarations
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Reasons Why Document Should Be Produced
66
8/12/2002
Shea(Doc. 225, Exhibit C ¶ 3,7, 17); O'Neill (Doc. 225, Exhibit B ¶ 23)
121
Fax Attaching Letter from S. Martin, Esq., with Covington & Burling Attorney's Notes re: Legal Analysis of Claims and Defenses
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
J. Vine, Esq.
H. O'Neill, Esq.
Attorney-Client Document predating Privilege decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
34
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 34 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim Reasons Why Document Should Be of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Produced
68
11/27/2002
123
Letter re: Plaintiffs' Claims, with Covington & Burling Attorney's Notes re: Legal Analysis of Claims and Defenses
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
H. O'Neill, Esq.
S. Martin, Esq.
Attorney-Client Privilege
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
35
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 35 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim Reasons Why Document Should Be of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Produced
87
6/9/2003
146
Email String re: Documents Related to Legal Analysis re: Plaintiffs' Claims 6/9/2003 From H. O'Neill, Esq. To K. Denlinger 6/6/2003 From R. Shea, Esq. To H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: K. Covert, Esq.; J. Vine, Esq.; J. Huvelle, Esq.; and G. Sandstrom, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
See Description
Attorney-Client Privilege
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
36
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 36 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim Reasons Why Document Should Be of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Produced
101
1/20/2003
160
Email String re: Advice to NonFiduciaries Regarding and Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Claim and Attached Draft 1/20/2003 From H. O'Neill, Esq. To R. Shea, Esq.; cc: G. Sandstrom, Esq.; J. Vine, Esq.; and K. Denlinger 1/16/2003 From H. O'Neill, Esq. To K. Denlinger; cc: R. Shea, Esq. 1/16/2003 From R. Shea, Esq. To H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: G. Sandstrom, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
See Description
Attorney-Client Privilege
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; Waiver of privilege, if any, by disclosure to Plan's actuary (K. Denlinger)
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
37
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 37 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim Reasons Why Document Should Be of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Produced
102
1/16/2003
161
Email String re: Legal Analysis Of Calculations Used In Letter From Susan Martin, Esq. 1/16/2003 From K. Denlinger To H. O'Neill, Esq. 12/4/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. To M. Gangone; cc: K. Denlinger
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
See Description
Attorney-Client Privilege
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; Waiver of privilege, if any, by disclosure to Plan's actuary (K. Denlinger)
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
38
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 38 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim Reasons Why Document Should Be of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Produced
103
11/6/2002
162
Email String re: Information Requested By Covington & Burling re: Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Claims 11/6/2002 From F. D'Ariano To C. Burnelko; cc: H. O'Neill, Esq.; C. Kitchell; K. Denlinger; and M. Gangone 11/6/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. To C. Burnelko; M. Holic; and C. Kitchell; cc: F. D'Ariano; K. Denlinger; and M. Gangone 11/6/2002 From J. Vine, Esq. To H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: R. Shea, Esq. and J. Huvelle, Esq.
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
See Description
Attorney-Client Privilege
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; Waiver of privilege, if any, by disclosure to Plan's consultants actuaries (K. Denlinger, F. D'Ariano)
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
39
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 39 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim Reasons Why Document Should Be of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Produced
104
9/30/2002
163
Email String re: Gathering Information In Response To Plaintiffs' Claims 9/30/2002 From K. Denlinger To C. Burnelko; cc: H. O'Neill, Esq.; M. Holic; and S. Williams 9/30/2002 From C. Burnelko To K. Denlinger; cc: H. O'Neill, Esq.; S. Williams; and M. Holic
Summary of Defendants' Reasons For Privilege:
See Description
See Description
Attorney-Client Privilege
Document predating decision on Plaintiffs' Plan appeal; Fiduciary exception applies; Matters of Plan administration; Waiver of privilege, if any, by disclosure to Plan's actuary (K. Denlinger)
Fiduciary exception does not apply because no fiduciary sent, received or was copied on the communication. Fiduciary exception does not apply because the Company was not seeking legal advice on behalf of the participants.
Plaintiffs' Plan claims submitted: July 26, 2002 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan claims: January 24, 2003 Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of Plan claims: July 1, 2003 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Plan appeal: October 29, 2003
40
Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS
Document 352-2
Filed 12/21/2007
Page 40 of 52
Exhibit A to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents
Doc No. on Defendants' Revised Privilege Log
Date of Document
Doc. No. on Defendants' First Privilege Logs
Defendants' Description of Document
Defendants' Description of Recipient
Defendants' Description of Sender
Defendants' Claim Reasons Why Document Should Be of Privilege
Summary of Plaintiffs' Produced
105
9/26/2002
164
Email String re: Information Requested By Covington & Burling re: Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' SBA Claim and Potential Litigation With Plaintiffs 9/26/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. To K. Denlinger; cc: K. Mathis; M. Gangone; M. Holic; and C. Burnelko 9/26/2002 From K. Denlinger To H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: K. Mathis; M. Gangone; M. Holic; C. Burnelko; J. Payne; and S. Williams 9/26/2002 From K. Denlinger To H. O'Neill, Esq.; cc: C. Burnelko; J. Payne; K. Mathis; M. Gangone; M. Holic; and S. Williams 9/25/2002 From H. O'Neill, Esq. To