Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00424/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00424-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barbara Allen, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. Cv-04-424-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Notice and Joint Statement of Discovery

Dispute (Doc. 482). For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees that communications in

dispute are not privileged.

Plaintiffs assert privilege over communications made in September, 1999 by some

class member retirees to solicit a lawyer, Blair Brininger, to bring claims again Defendants.

That lawyer did not take the case; subsequently, the retirees distributed those

communications to public and private agencies, including the Department of Labor, the

American Association of Retired Persons, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”). They had also previously produced the

communications in this litigation, as did the DOL in response to Defendants’ FOIA request.

Defendants argue that this waived any privilege; Plaintiffs, for their part, argue that the

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 485 Filed 09/18/08 Page 1 of 3
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

1 The PBGC wrote in a letter to Plaintiffs that it was "not the statutory trustee for

any of these pension plans," and "[i]n cases involving pension plans for which

PBGC is not the statutory trustee or ongoing pension plans, PBGC does not

have the legal authority to sue the appropriate parties for misuse of pension

funds." Ex. C at 12. 

- 2 -

groups consulted by class members all share “a common interest with participants in ensuring

compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA.”

The work product doctrine is not waived where there is a “common adversary

interest.” S. Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp., 205 F.R.D. 542, 549 (D. Ariz. 2002). “The

common-interest privilege ‘protects communications between a lawyer and two or more

clients regarding a matter of common interest.’” United States ex rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp.,

209 F.R.D. 21 (2001 D.D.C.). This privilege, it is worth noting, has been developed in

contrast to a “common defense” privilege, with courts holding that “plaintiffs must enjoy the

same privilege” given to cooperating defendants else they be “situated better than their

plaintiff counterparts.” Id. at 24. Plaintiffs point to cases dealing with situations in which

a government agency shares some version of the “common adversary interest” with a party.

For instance, the government can “stand in the shoes of beneficiaries when it is investigating

and prosecuting malfeasance in the administration of an ERISA fund.” In re Grand Jury

Proceedings, 162 F.3d 554, 557 (9th Cir. 1998). However, precedent is not so broad as to

encompass situations in which parties share information with a variety of agencies and

interest groups some of which, like the PBGC, did not actually have the authority to

investigate or sue for misuse of pension funds1

 and none of which are actively engaged in

prosecuting, or even investigating, a case. Thus, Defendant’s interpretation is correct.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs shall not assert privilege over the communications at

issue.

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 485 Filed 09/18/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the depositions of Jack Gilmore and Paul Bielert will

be reopened for one hour to allow questioning directed at the statute of limitations

communications. 

DATED this 18th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 485 Filed 09/18/08 Page 3 of 3