Free Declaration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT D
Case 2:04—cv—00424—ROS Document 167-5 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 1 of 3

téoateywet
Honeywell International Inc.
P.O. Box 2245 M Fg }
101 Columbia Road Qjgi _ i-
Morristown, NI 07962-2245
November 1 9, 2002€i‘i5%li€’ii$‘»l PLLC.
Susan Martin, Esq.
Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C.
3300 North Central Avenue
Suite 1720 . , _ · _
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 if .
Dear Ms. Martin:
I am writing on behalf of the plan administrator to respond to your
letter of October 22, 2002. i
In your July 26th letter, you asked for "a complete statement of
benefit calculations including any footnotes or formulas used in computing the
benefits for each of the Retirees." In your October 22d letter, you rejected the
plan administrator's offer to provide, for a sample of your clients, the detailed
_ explanations you had requested, on the ground that you did not "believe that
ERlSA's obligations to provide plan documents can be interpreted to negate
that requirement merely because there are a large number of retirees."
The plan administrator does not accept the premise for the
position taken in your October 22d letter -— that ERISA requires an
administrator to provide the detailed statements of calculations that you
requested. ERISA § 104(b)(4) requires the plan administrator to provide only
specifically-enumerated documents (such as the latest summary plan
description, the latest annual report, and any bargaining agreement, trust
agreement, and "other instruments under which the plan is established or
operated"). Section 104(b)(4) requires the plan administrator to provide copies
of governing plan instruments; it does not require the plan administrator to
provide explanations or to provide copies of plan work papers}
1 It is not clear that ERISA requires the plan administrator to provide you with any documents.
Section 104(b)(4) requires the plan administrator to furnish documents "upon written request
of any participant or beneficiary." Since you do not claim to be either a participant or A
beneficiary yourself, and since you have not furnished the plan administrator with written
authorization from any of your clients, it is not clear that ERISA requires the plan administrator
to respond to any request you make under § 104(b)(4). See, e.g., DoL Adv. Op. 82-21A (April
21, 1982).
DC:700074—l
Case 2:04—cv—00424—ROS Document 167-5 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 2 of 3

Susan Martin, Esq.
November 19, 2002
Page 2
In your October 22d letter, you acknowledged that you already
have benefit calculations statements for some of your clients and said that you
would identify the clients for whom benefit calculation statement were »
provided in the past if the plan administrator would agree to provide such
statements for your other clients. Although we do not think the plan
administrator is required to provide such statements, the plan administrator P
agrees to resolve this matter on these terms. Please send me a complete
written list of all of your clients for whom benefit statements have already
been provided. lf you do this, the plan administrator will undertake to provide
benefit statements for the remaining clients.
ln your October 22d letter, you also referred to your request for
Exhibit B to the Garret Retirement Plan. Despite its efforts to locate Exhibit B,
the plan administrator has not found it. A signed copy of the Garrett
Retirement Plan as of January 1, 1976, has been located, however. A copy of
the signed plan document is enclosed. The signed copy differs from the
unsigned copy that was previously furnished to you in a number of respects.
One of the differences is that the signed copy does not refer to Exhibit B.
Although we cannot be certain, this suggests that Exhibit B does not exist and
may never have existed.2
Sincerely,
Harry J.J. O'NeiI|
Assistant General Counsel
Honeywell International lnc.
2 Although the plan administrator has responded in good faith to your requests for old,
predecessor-plan documents, please bear in mind that ERISA § 104(b)(4) requires the plan
administrator to provide copies of current documents, not outdated documents. See, e.g.,
Shields v. Local 705, /ntern’/ Bhd. of Teamsters Pension Plan, 188 F.3d 895, 903 (7th Cir.
1999); Leung v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 213 F. Supp.2d 1097, 1104-05 (N.D. Cal.
2002).
Case 2:04—cv—00424—ROS Document 167-5 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 167-5

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 167-5

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 167-5

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 3 of 3