### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 27, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble Richard W. Goldberg , Judg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10850

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -026 35 -C V -B B M -1 OT I S J . HO L L OMAN , J ON E L L A H OL L OMAN , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s M A I L - W E L L C O R P O R A T I O N , a s S uc c e s s ori n I nt e r e s tt o C ur t i s 1000, I nc . , a n A m e r i c a n B u s in e s s P r o d u c ts I n c . C o m p a n y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 27, 2006) B ef ore D U B IN A and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and G O L D B E R G , Judg e. *2

M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: A pp el l ant s O t i s J . H ol l om an and Jon el l a H ol l om an appeal fr om the di stri ct c o u r t’s o r d e ro f

f in a l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t e n te r e d in f a v o ro f ap p e lle e M a il- W e ll C orp. (“ M ai l -W el l ”) on thei r c l ai m s broug htun der the fe dera l E m pl oyee R et i re m entIncom e S ec uri ty A ct(E R IS A ), 29 U . S . C . §§ 11 01 –1 11 4. A ft er tho roug h revi ew , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y gra nt ed fi nal s um m a ry j udgm e nton the H ol l om a ns ’ c l a i m s . M or e ove r , w e a r e unpe r s ua de d by ap p e lla n ts ’ c la im th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e n ie d th e ir m ot i ons t o c om pe l di s c ove ry . F i na l l y , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de ra n appe a l by the H ol l om ans’ att orney, C hri st op her V augh n, chal l engi ng a s anct i on s ordert o p ay a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s a n d a c c o r d in g ly d is m is s th a t is s u e f r o m th e ap p e a l. I T he es se nt i al and u nd i sput ed fa ct s i n thi s c as e a re these : O t i s H ol l om an w orked for C urt i s 100 0, Inc. , an A m er i ca n B usi ness P rodu ct s, Inc. , (“ A B P ”) c om pa ny , f

r om 1948 unt i l he r e t i r e d i n 1991. H ol l om a n j oi ne d tw o r e t i r e m e nt pl ans thatA B P offe re d t o cer t ai n k ey exec ut i ves a s are t ent i on i ncent i ve. H e j oi ned the A B P S uppl e m e nt a l R e t i r e m e ntI nc om e P l a n on J une 5, 1984, a nd j oi ne d the A B P D e f

e rr e d C o m p e n s a tio n I n v e s tm e n t P la n o n J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 . O n b o th p la n s , H o llo m a n e le c te d a “L a s t S u r v iv o rO p tio n .” U n d e rth is3

o p t i o n , H o l l o m an w o u l d recei v e l o w er m o n th l y b en efi tp aym en t s, b u tth o se pa y m e nt s , i ns t e a d of

e ndi ng a tH ol l om a n’ s de a th, w oul d c ont i nue t o hi s s pous e f or th e r e s t o f

h e rlif e if s h e o u tliv e d h im . M a il- W e ll c la im s th is s u r v iv o rb e n e f it o n ly appl i e d t o O t i s H ol l om a n’ s w i f e a tthe t i m e , w ho w a s K a the r i ne H ol l om a n. T he H ol l om a ns s a y tha tthe s ur vi vorbe ne f i ta l s o appl i e s t o O t i s H ol l om a n’ s c ur r e nt w i f e , J one l l a H ol l om a n. E a c h pl a n gr a nt e d a uthor i ty t o the A B P boa r d t o a m e nd the pl a n t e r m s but r e s tr ic te d th a t a u th o r ity b y p r o v id in g th a t n o a m e n d m e n t c o u ld r e d u c e th e b e n e f its t o b e pai d t o a part i ci pant . In 19 90 , A B P am ended t he pl ans s o thatea ch prov i ded th a t in th e e v e n t o f

a c h a n g e in c o n tr o l, th e p la n tru s te e w o u ld h a v e “s o le a u th o r ity t o c ons true a nd de t e r m i ne the e f f e c t s of the pr ovi s i ons of

the P l a n. ” O n J ul y 9, 1990, A B P e nt e r e d a n a gr e e m e ntna m i ng the F i r s tN a t i ona l B a nk of A t l a nt a - - now W ach o v i a -- as th e p l an tru st ee fo r b o th p l an s. I n 1991, H ol l om a n r e t i r e d a nd be ga n r e c e i vi ng m onthl y j oi nta nd s ur vi vor a n n u ity p a y m e n ts . I n N o v e m b e r1 9 9 4 , h is w if e , K a th e r in e H o llo m a n , d ie d . O tis H ol l om a n the n m a rr i e d J one l l a H ol l om a n on N ove m be r5, 1995. T he H ol l om a ns c l a i m tha ts hor t l y the r e a f t e r , a ta c om pa ny C hr i s tm a s pa r ty i n D e c e m be r1995, a nd agai n i n a l at ert el epho ne conv er sa t i on , a C urt i s 100 0 h um an re source s r e pr e s e nt a t i ve a s s ur e d the H ol l om a ns tha tJ one l l a H ol l om a n w oul d r e c e i ve the4

s a m e be ne f

i t s tha tK a the r i ne H ol l om a n w a s t o ha ve r e c e i ve d. O n J ul y 7, 2000, the de f e nda nt , M a i l - W e l l , a c qui r e d A B P . I n 2001, M a il- W e ll d e c id e d to a c c e le r a te p a y m e n t o f b e n e f its u n d e rth e p la n s . M a il- W e ll c ons ul t e d w i th i t s l e ga l c ouns e l , a nd obt a i ne d appr ova l f orthe a c c e l e r a t i on f

r om W a c hovi a , the pl a n trus t e e , a nd the M a i l - W e l l boa r d of di r e c t or s . T he pl a ns spec i fi ed “ ac tuari al as sum pt i on s” for the paym entof benefi t s, i ncl ud i ng l i fe ex p ect an cy est i m at es an d an assu m ed 8 % d i sco u n trat e fo r th e p aym en to f b en efi t s, butthe y di d noti nc l ude s pe c i f i c i ns truc t i ons ora c tua r i a l a s s um pt i ons f orm a ki ng ac ce l er at ed l um p-sum paym ent s. M ai l -W el l had an o ut si de consul t i ng fi rm , M er ce r H um a n R e s our c e s C ons ul t i ng, c a l c ul a t e the a c c e l e r a t e d pa y m e nt s ba s e d on a c tu a r ia l tab le s th a t ap p r o x im a te ly m a tc h e d th e lif e e x p e c ta n c y e s tim a te s u s e d to cal cu l at e b en efi t s. O t i s H ol l om a n r e c e i ve d not i c e of the a c c e l e r a t i on on A ugus t29, 2001. W i thoutH ol l om a n’ s c ons e nt , M a i l - W e l l pa i d hi m a l um p- s um pa y m e ntof $436, 443. 00, w hi c h c a m e outt o $315, 421. 17 a f t e rt a xe s w e r e w i thhe l d. H ol l om a n’ s pa y m e ntdi d noti nc l ude a ny a m ountr e f l e c t i ng s ur vi vorbe ne f

i t s t o be pa i d t o J one l l a H ol l om a n i f s he s ur vi ve d O t i s H ol l om a n. O n M a y 9, 2003, the H ol l om a ns c om m e nc e d s ui ti n the S upe r i orC our tof F u lto n C o u n ty , G e o r g ia , f o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t, a lle g in g s p e c if ic a lly th a t M a il- W e llTh edo c trineof c omp le tepre e mption

permits fe deral qu e sti on

remov al of

ERI SA c laims 1 pleade d as state law

claims. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 66–67 (1987); Kemp v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 109 F.3d 708, 712 (11th Cir. 1997). ERI SA § 502(a), 29 U .S.C. § 1132, allo ws privatec ivi l enf

orc e ment ac tio ns by

pla n p artic ipa

nts . Theprov isi on

re a ds : § 1132. Civil enforcement (a) Persons empowered to bringa civil ac tion A civil action may

be brought-- (1) by a par ticipant or bene ficiar

y-- (A) for the relief provided for in subsec tion (c) of this section, or (B ) to re c ov e r b e ne fits d ueto him und e r t

heterm s o f his p lan, to e nf orc eis rightsun der t

heterm s o f t

hepla n, or to c lari fy hisri ghts to future benefits under

the terms of theplan; (2) by the Secretar

y , or by a par ticipant, benef

iciary or fiducia

ry for appropriate re lief under

section 1109 of this title; (3) by a par ticipant, benef

iciary, or fiducia

ry (A) to enjoin any

act or prac tice which violates a

ny provision of this subchapter or the terms of theplan, or (B ) to obtain other a

ppropriateequitable relief ( i) to redress such 5 h a d b r e a c h e d its c o n tr a c tu a l o b lig a tio n s b y a c c e le r a tin g p a y m e n ts w ith o u t m a jo r ity appr ova l f

r om the A B P boa r d of

di r e c t or s , di s c ount i ng pa y m e nt s , a nd de ny i ng benefi t s t o Jon el l a H ol l om an. M ai l -W el l re m ov ed the ca se t o the U ni t ed S t at es D i s tr i c tC our tf

orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof G e or gi a pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1441, cont endi ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff ' s c on tra ctcl ai m s w er e pre em pt ed by the fe dera l E m pl oy e e R e t i r e m e ntI nc om e S e c ur i ty A c t( E R I S A ) , 29 U . S . C . §§ 1101–1114, w ho se ci vi l enforce m entprov i si on s c om pl et el y di spl ac e a nal og ou s s t at e l aw c l a i m s . T he pl a i nt i f

f s the n m ove d t o r e m a nd the c a us e t o s t a t e c our t , butthe 1vio latio ns or (i i) to enf

orc eany prov isi on s o f t

hissu bc ha pter o r t heterm s of the plan; (4) by the Secretar

y , or by a par ticipant, or bene ficiar

y for a ppropriaterelief in the caseof a violation of 1025( c) of this ti tle;

. . . 29 U.S.C. § 1132. ERI SA § 40 9, 29 U. S.C. § 1 10 9, prov ide s: § 1 10 9. L ia

bil ity fo r b re a c h o f f

iduc iary duty (a) Any

person who is a

fiduciar y with respec t to a plan who bre ache s any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiducia ries by this subchapter shall be per sonally

liable to make g ood to such plan any losses to the plan resultingfrom each such breach, and to re store to such plan a ny profits of such fiduciar y which havebeen made through use of a ssets of the plan by the fiduciar y , and shall be subjec t to such other equitableor remedial re lief as the court may deem a ppropriate , including removal of suc h fiduciar y . A fiducia

ry may also be removed for a

violation of section 1111 of this title. (b ) Nofi du c iary

sh all b elia

blewi th re sp e c t to a

bre a c h o f f

iduc iary duty un der t his subchapter if such breach was c ommitt ed bef ore hebeca

me a f iduciary or af ter he c e a s e d t o b ea f i d u c i ar y. 29 U.S.C. § 1109. 6 di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d tha tappl i c a t i on on N ove m be r17, 2003. S o o n th e r e a f

te r , a n d w ith le a v e o f

c o u r t, th e p la in tif

f s a m e n d e d th e ir c o m p la in t s ta tin g c la im s u n d e rE R I S A . T h e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t s p e c if ic a lly a l l e ge d tha tM a i l - W e l l ’ s a c t i ons a m ount e d t o f a i l ur e t o pa y be ne f

i t s ( C ountI ) , a nd i nt e r f e r e nc e w i th be ne f

i t s ( C ountI I ) , a nd tha tM a i l - W e l l ’ s m odi f i c a t i on of

the b e n e f it p la n s w ith o u t a m a

jo r ity v o te a m o u n te d to a b r e a c h o f f id u c ia ry d u ty (C ou ntII I) . T he pl ai nt i ff s s ou gh tdecl ar at ory r el i ef , i nj un ct i ve re l i ef

, com pensat ory7

an d p u n i t i v e d am ag es, an d att o rn ey’ s fees an d co st s. T he pl a i nt i f

f s a nd de f e nda ntf i l e d c r os s m ot i ons f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt , a nd on J a nua ry 24, 2005, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d f i na l s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof th e d e f e n d a n ts . T h e H o llo m a n s tim e ly b r o u g h t th is ap p e a l. II T he H ol l om ans a rgue fi rs tthatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng fi nal s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e y a ls o s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g th e ir m o t i o n s t o co m p el d i sco v ery. W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntorde ni a l of s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo. B ochese v. T ow n o f P on ce Inl et , 40 5 F . 3d 96 4, 97 5 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e c on si der on l y the evi dence thatw as avai l abl e t o the di stri ctcourtatthe t i m e i tconsi dere d the m ot i on . W el ch v. C el ot ex C orp. , 95 1 F . 2d 12 35 , 12 37 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ). S u m m ary j u d g m en ti s ap p ro p ri at e w h en th e ev i d en ce, v i ew ed i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the nonm ovi ng pa r ty , pr e s e nt s no ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta nd c om pe l s j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w i n f a vorof the m ovi ng pa r ty . S e e F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( c ) ; C e l ot e x C orp. v. C a tr e tt , 477 U . S . 317, 322–23 ( 1986) ; B oc he s e , 405 F . 3d a t975. W h en rev i ew i n g a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o co m p el d i sco v ery, w e appl y a n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d. S a nde r l i n v. S e m i nol e T r i be of F l a . , 2438

F . 3d 1282, 1285 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng B ur ge rK i ng C orp. v. W e a ve r , 169 F . 3d 1310, 1320 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ) . T hi s m e a ns tha ta di s tr i c tc our ti s a l l ow e d “ a r a nge of c hoi c e ” i n s uc h m a tt e r s , a nd w e w i l l nots e c ond- gue s s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a c t i ons unl e s s the y r e f

l e c ta “ c l e a re rr orof

j udgm e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K e l l y , 888 F . 2d 73 2, 74 5 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). II I T he H ol l om ans’ m ai n argum enti s thatthe di stri ctcourti ncorrec t l y gra nt ed f i na l s um m a ry j udgm e ntf orthe de f

e nda nt s ba s e d on i t s c onc l us i on tha tthe H ol l om a ns ha d f

a i l e d t o pr e s e nts uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o t a ke the c a s e t o tr i a l . T he p la in tif f s o f f e rth r e e r e a s o n s : f

ir s t, th a t th e p la n s d id n o t a llo w M a il- W e ll to di stri bu t e O t i s H ol l om an’ s benef i t s i n a on e- t i m e l um p-sum paym ent ; se cond , that th e o n e - tim e lu m p - s u m p a y m e n t in e s s e n c e a m o u n te d to a r e d u c tio n in b e n e f it pa y m e nt s i n vi ol a t i on of the e xpr e s s t e r m s of

the pl a ns ; a nd, f

i na l l y , tha tthe l um ps u m p a y m e n t f

a ile d to a c c o u n t f

o rth e jo in t a n d s u r v iv o ra n n u ity p a y m e n ts J o n e lla H ol l om a n w a s t o r e c e i ve i f s he out l i ve d O t i s H ol l om a n. A l l of the part i es m ai nt ai n, and w e a gree , thatbo th o f the re t i re m entpl ans a t is s u e a r e “to p h a t” p la n s f o rp u rp o s e s o f

E R I S A . A to p h a t p la n is “a p la n w h ic h is unf unde d a nd i s m a i nt a i ne d by a n e m pl oy e rpr i m a r i l y f orthe purpos e of

pr ovi di ng defe rr ed com pensat i on for ase l ec tgrou p o f m anagem entor hi gh l y c om pensat ed9

em pl oyee s, ” 29 U . S . C . §§ 10 51 (2), 10 81 (a )( 3), 11 01 (a )( 1). T op hatpl ans a re s ubj e c tt o E R I S A , 29 U . S . C . § 1003( a ) , butnot a bl y , the y a r e e xc l ude d f r om m a ny i nd i vi du al E R IS A prov i si on s on the basi c a ss um pt i on thathi gh -l evel em pl oyee s a r e i n a “ s tr ong ba r ga i ni ng pos i t i on r e l a t i ve t o the i re m pl oy e r s a nd thus do not r e q u ir e th e s a m e s u b s ta n tiv e p r o te c tio n s th a t a r e n e c e s s a ry f o ro th e re m p lo y e e s .” G ol ds t e i n v. J ohns on & J ohns on, 251 F . 3d 433, 442 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; s e e a l s o 29 U . S . C . § 1051( 2) ( e xc l udi ng t op ha tpl a ns f r om pa r t i c i pa t i on a nd ve s t i ng pr ovi s i ons ) ; i d. § 1081( a ) ( 3) ( e xc l udi ng t op ha tpl a ns f r om f undi ng pr ovi s i ons ) ; i d. § 1 10 1(a) (1) ( excl ud i ng t op hatpl ans f rom fi du ci ary l i abi l i ty provi si on s) . T here i s s om e uncert ai nty abo utw hatst andard of revi ew a di stri ctcourt shou l d app l y w hen revi ew i ng deci si on s m ade by the adm i ni stra t or of a t op hat pl an. T he di stri ctcourtob se rved thati tw as fol l ow i ng a T hi rd C i rc ui tca se , G ol dst ei n v . John son & John son, 25 1 F . 3d at43 3, and w ou l d revi ew the pl an adm i ni stra t ors’ deci si on s de nov o rather than accordi ng som e def er ence t o the pl an ad m in istrato rs . In co n tras t, th e d ef en d an ts ar g u e th at th e d istrict co u rt’s de t e r m i na t i on c onf

l i c t e d w i th a n e a r l i e rS upr e m e C our tc a s e , F i r e s t one T i r e a nd R ubbe rC o. v. B ruc h, 489 U . S . 101 ( 1989) , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve ap p lie d th e m o r e d e f

e r e n tia l a rb itr a ry - a n d - c ap r ic io u s s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w . W e f

in d it un nece ss ary t o d ec i de w hether the di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave app l i ed a defe re nt i alIn th eDe ferre d Co mpens atio n Inv e stm e nt P lan, thi s p ro vis ion re a ds : 2 XIV. AMENDMEN T AND TE RMI NATI ON A. Ex cept a s provided in B below, the B oard, w ithout consent of any Participant or B enef

iciary, may

at any time or from time to time amend the plan in any

respe ct or ter

minate the Plan without restriction. B. I f the Participa

nt is eligible to re ceivefull benef its at ag e 62 or reduce d benef its at ag e 60 under

the terms of thePlan, the benef it to which the 10 st andard of revi ew or de no vo re vi ew . B ec ause al l of the qu es t i on s i n thi s c as e turn o n in te rp r e ta tio n o f

w h a t th e p la in te r m s o f th e p la n s p e r m it a n d r e q u ir e , th e r e s u lts wo u l d b e p r e c i s e l y th e s a m e u n d e re i th e rs t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. A. T h e H o llo m a n s f

ir s t s a y th a t th e p la n s d id n o t a u th o r iz e M a il- W e ll to accelerat e p aym en t s. T he D e f e rr e d C om pe ns a t i on I nve s tm e ntP l a n c ont a i ns a pr ovi s i on r e a di ng: V I I I . A c c e le r a tio n o f

P a y m e n ts A . T h e B o a r d ( a c tin g b y m a jo r ity v o te ) r e s e r v e s th e r ig h t in i t s s ol e di s c r e t i on t o a c c e l e r a t e the pa y m e ntof a ny b e n e f its p a y a b le u n d e rth e P la n o rth e J o in e rA g r e e m e n t, bu tthe B oard shal l m ake no reduct i on s i n b enef i t s other th a n th o s e p r o v id e d in th e P la n , b a s e d o n th e ap p lic a b le A ctu ari al A ssu m p t i o n s. T h e S u p p le m e n ta l R e tir e m e n t I n c o m e P la n c o n ta in s a n id e n tic a l p r o v is io n . B o th pl a ns a l s o c ont a i n s e pa r a t e pr ovi s i ons gr a nt i ng the B oa r d the a uthor i ty t o a m e nd th e t erm s o f th e p l an s. T h e t erm “ B o ard ” refers to the A B P b o ard o f d i rect o rs. 2Participant is entitled immediately after any amendment or

termination sh all und e r n o c irc ums tanc e s b ele ss t ha n th ebene fit to whic h h eis e nt i t l e d b e f o res u c ham e n dm e nto r

t e r m i n at i o nb e c am ee f

f e c t i v e . In addition, notwithst andingthe right of the B oard to amend or ter minate the Plan, theri ght ( if

any ) o f a ny Partic ipa nt o r B e ne fi c iary

to re c e iveor

to continue to re ceivepay

ments in acc ordanc e with the ter ms and conditions of the Plan in eff

ect on his retirement, death, disability or Ter mination of Employ ment, shall under no c ircumstance s be impaired or forf eited by such amendment or termination. In th eSupplemental Re tire ment I nc omePla

n, thi s p ro vis ion

re a ds : XIV. AMENDMEN T AND TE RMI NATI ON A. Ex cept a s provided in B . below, the B oard, w ithout the consent of any Participant or B enef

iciary, may

at any time or from time to time amend the Plan in any

respe ct or ter

minate the Plan without restriction. B. I f any

participa nt is vested in his benefit under the terms of thePlan (i.e., heha s re a c he d ag e62 or

is e lig ibl efo r re du c e d b e ne fits at ag e60 ), or if the sum of his ag e and Ser vice e quals or excee ds 75, the bene fit to which the Participant is entitled (or to whic h he may beca me entitled upon reachinga certain ag e) immediate ly after any amendment or

termination, shall under no c ircumstance s be less than the benefit to which heis or wo uld be c omee ntitle d tobe fo resu c h amendment o r t e rminatio n b e c ame eff ective . I n addition, notwithst andingthe right of the B oard to amend or terminatethePlan, theri ght ( if any ) o f a ny Partic ipa nt o r B e ne fi c iary

to re c e iveor to c ontin ueto re c e ivepa

y mentsin ac c orda

nc ewi th t heterm s and conditions of the Plan in ef fec t on his retirement, de ath, disability or Termination of Employ

ment, shall under no c ircumstance s be impaired or forf eited by such amendment or termination.

11 O n J a n u a ry 1 , 1 9 9 0 , th e A B P b o a r d a m e n d e d b o th p la n s to p r o v id e th a t in th e e v e n t o f

a c h a n g e in c o n tr o l, th e p la n tru s te e w o u ld a s s u m e “s o le a u th o r ity to c ons true a nd t o de t e r m i ne the e f f e c t s of the pr ovi s i ons of

the P l a n a nd the T rus ton th e P a r tic ip a n ts a n d , if

ap p lic a b le , th e C o m p a n y .” L a t e r , i n 2000, M a i l - W e l l a c qui r e d A B P . O n J ul y 2, 2001, w i th the a dvi c e of12

i t s c ou nsel and w i th the approv al of the pl an trust ee , W ac ho vi a, M ai l -W el l ’ s board o f d ir e c to r s d e te r m in e d th a t w h e n it s u c c e e d e d th e A B P b o a r d , it h a d a s s u m e d b o th th e au th o ri ty t o am en d th e p l an s’ t erm s an d th e au th o ri ty t o accelerat e p aym en t s. T he M a i l - W e l l boa r d a m e nde d the pl a ns t o pr ovi de f orone - t i m e l um p- s um p aym en t s t o p l an p art i ci p an t s. B as ed on these fa ct s, the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthe t erm s of the di sput ed pl a ns pr ovi de d una m bi guous a uthor i ty f orthe a c c e l e r a t i on of

pa y m e nt s , the r e by m aki ng i tun nece ss ary f or the courtt o revi ew any e xtri nsi c e vi dence. W e a gree . M a i l - W e l l ’ s a c qui s i t i on of A B P i n 2000 tr i gge r e d the c ha nge - i n- c ontr ol pr ovi s i ons a nd, a c c or di ngl y , m a de W a c hovi a , the pl a n trus t e e , r e s pons i bl e f orde t e r m i ni ng ho w the change i n con trol af fe ct ed the t erm s of the pl ans. W ac ho vi a c on cl ud ed that the M ai l -W el l bo ar d h ad st epped i nt o the shoes of the A B P bo ar d and had ass um ed th e a u th o r ity th a t th e A B P b o a r d h a d p r e v io u s ly h e ld , in c lu d in g th e p o w e rto a m e n d th e te r m s o f

th e p la n s a n d a c c e le r a te p a y m e n ts o f p la n b e n e f

its . Q u ite s i mp l y , M a i l - W e l l ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d i s tr i b u t e H o l l o ma n ’ s f u tu r e p a y me n t s i n a l u mp s um pl a i nl y c om pl i e d w i th the t e r m s of the r e t i r e m e ntpl a ns . A nd the t e r m s of the pl a ns t a ke pr e c e de nc e ove ra ny a s s ur a nc e s the H ol l om a ns m a y ha ve r e c e i ve d f r om C ur t i s 1000 e m pl oy e e s . S e e , e . g. , M e a dow s e x r e l . M e a dow s v. C a gl e ’ s , I nc . , 954 F . 2d 686, 691 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ( “ W he n pl a n doc um e nt s una m bi guous l y a ddr e s s theTh eprov isi on g ov e rninga c c e lera

tio n o f p ay

mentsc ontainsidenti c al w ordingin b oth 3 retire ment p lans :

VIII . Ac c e leratio n o f P ay ments A. Th eB oa

rd (ac tingby

ma jority vo te ) re serv e s th eri ght in it s so le discretion to ac celeratethe pay ment of any

benef its payable under the Plan or the Joiner Agreement, but the Boa rd shall make no reduc tions in benefits other than those provided in the Plan, based on thea pp lic a bleAc tua ri al A ssumption s. The provisions g overningamendment a nd termination of the plans a re reproduc ed above . Supra note 2. 13 subst ant i ve ri gh t s of the part i es ati ss ue, the pl an l angu age c on trol s . . . . ”) . B. T h e p la in tif

f s a ls o a r g u e th a t e v e n if th e p la n s a llo w e d M a il- W e ll to a uthor i z e l um p- s um pa y m e nt s , the m e thods M a i l - W e l l us e d t o c a l c ul a t e the l um ps u m p a y me n tt o H o l l o ma n e f f e c t e d a r e d u c t i o n i n b e n e f i t s i n v i o l a t i o n o f

th e t e r ms of the pl a ns . T he pr ovi s i ons i n the pl a ns tha tgove rn a c c e l e r a t i on of pa y m e nt s a nd a m e ndm e nta nd t e r m i na t i on of the pl a ns c l e a r l y s pe c i f y tha tno a c c e l e r a t i on, a m e n d m e n t, o rte r m in a tio n m a y r e d u c e th e b e n e f its p a y a b le to a p la n p a r tic ip a n t. 3 T he pl a ns di d nots pe c i f y l i f e e xpe c t a nc y e s t i m a t e s ordi s c ountr a t e s t o be u s e d in c a lc u la tin g a c c e le r a te d lu m p - s u m p a y m e n ts . A c c o r d in g ly , M a il- W e ll c a l c ul a t e d the l um p- s um pa y m e nt s t o H ol l om a n a nd othe rbe ne f i c i a r i e s us i ng a 19 83 G roup A nn ui ty M ort al i ty ( G A M 83 ) t abl e a nd a di sc ou ntra t e of 7% . M er ce r H um a n R e s our c e s C ons ul t i ng de t e r m i ne d tha tthi s t a bl e w a s s i m i l a rt o the t a bl e the14

p l an s em p l o yed fo r th e cal cu l at i o n o f m o n th l y p aym en t s. T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha tM a i l - W e l l w a s e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nt be c a us e i tha d a c t e d r e a s ona bl y a nd di l i ge nt l y i n c a l c ul a t i ng the l um p- s um p a y m e n ts . H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e th e p la n te r m s c le a r ly p r o h ib it a n y r e d u c tio n in b e n e f its , th e is s u e w a s n o t w h e th e rM a il- W e ll a c te d r e a s o n a b ly a n d c a r e f u lly in c a lc u la tin g th e p a y m e n ts ; it w a s w h e th e rth e lu m p - s u m p a y m e n ts w e r e a c tu a lly e qui va l e nti n va l ue t o the s tr e a m of f utur e pa y m e nt s H ol l om a n w a s t o ha ve recei v ed o ri g i n al l y. N e v e r th e le s s , w e a f

f ir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a vorof M a i l - W e l l , be c a us e the H ol l om a ns di d notpr e s e nta ny a f f i r m a t i ve e v id e n c e to s h o w th a t th e lu m p - s u m p a y m e n t w a s n o t f u lly e q u iv a le n t in v a lu e to the future benefi t s pay abl e. B ec ause the H ol l om ans w er e the pl ai nt i ff s i n the ca se , i tw a s the i rbur de n t o pr ove the ul t i m a t e i s s ue of l i a bi l i ty . O nc e M a i l - W e l l f i l e d a p r o p e r ly s u p p o r te d m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ( w h ic h th e y d id ) , th e b u r d e n f e ll to th e H o llo m a n s to p r o d u c e s o m e e v id e n c e th a t c o u ld s u p p o r t a v e r d ic t in th e ir f a vor . S e e A nde r s on v. L i be r ty L obby , I nc . , 477 U . S . 242, 256 ( 1986) ( “ [ T ] he pl ai nt i ff m ustpres entaf

fi rm at i ve evi dence i n o rdert o d ef ea ta properl y s up po rt ed m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt . ” ) ; s e e a l s o L uj a n v. D e f e nde r s of W i l dl i f e , 504 U . S . 555, 561 ( 1992) ( “ I n r e s pons e t o a s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on, . . . the15

pl a i nt i f f c a n no l onge rr e s ton . . . ‘ m e r e a l l e ga t i ons , ’ butm us t‘ s e tf or th’ by af fi davi tor ot her e vi dence ‘ spec i fi c f ac t s’ w hi ch for purpo se s of the sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on w i l l be t aken t o b e true. ” ( qu ot i ng F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (e )) ). T he H ol l om ans di d n otpres entevi dence thatcoul d sup po rtthei r c l ai m that th e lu m p - s u m p a y m e n t M a il- W e ll p a id to O tis H o llo m a n w a s n o t e q u iv a le n t in val ue t o the stre am of paym ent s thatO t i s H ol l om an w as t o rec ei ve i n the future. W e c a n n o t a c c e p t th e c o n te n tio n th a t th e a c t o f d is c o u n tin g H o llo m a n ’s b e n e f it p aym en t s t o p resen tv al u e n ecessaril y am o u n t ed t o a red u ct i o n i n b en efi t s. D i sc ou nt i ng t o p re se ntval ue i s ast andard w ay t o acc ou ntfor the fa ctthata dol l ar am ou ntt o b e r ec ei ved i n the future i s gener al l y w orth l es s than t he sa m e dol l ar a m ountr e c e i ve d i n the pr e s e nt . B y c ont e ndi ng tha tM a i l - W e l l c oul d notdi s c ount f utur e pa y m e nt s t o pr e s e ntva l ue , the H ol l om a ns a r e e s s e nt i a l l y s a y i ng tha tthe val ue of any l um p-sum paym enthad t o exceed the val ue of the stre am of future p a y m e n ts th a t it w a s m e a n t to r e p la c e . T h e p la n te r m s o n ly r e q u ir e d M a il- W e ll to p a y th e e q u iv a le n t o f

H o llo m a n ’s f

u tu r e p a y m e n ts . I t s u r e ly d id n o t r e q u ir e th e m to p ay m o re th an th e v al u e o f H o l l o m an ’ s fu tu re p aym en t s. T h e H o llo m a n s p r e s e n te d n o a f f ir m a tiv e e v id e n c e - - s u c h a s m a r k e t a n n u ity pr i c e s , ore vi de nc e of

l i f e e xpe c t a nc y e s t i m a t e s a nd di s c ountr a t e s us e d i n the pr i va t e m a r ke t- - t o e s t a bl i s h the true pr e s e ntva l ue of the f utur e pa y m e nt s or16

othe rw i s e s how tha tva l ue of the l um p- s um pa y m e ntf e l l s hor tof

the va l ue of H ol l om an’ s f

uture benefi tpaym ent s. A l l thatthe H ol l om ans off er ed w er e concl usory a ss ert i on s thatM ai l -W el l had sho rt changed t hem ; these broad co n cl u si o n s st an d i n g al o n e co u l d n o th av e su p p o rt ed a v erd i cti n th e H o l l o m an s’ f a v o r . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly c o n c lu d e d th a t th e H o llo m a n s f a ile d to pr e s e nte nough e vi de nc e t o pr oc e e d t o tr i a l on the i rc l a i m tha tthe l um p- s um paym entw as i nadequ at e. C. T h e p la in tif

f s f u r th e ra r g u e th a t th e lu m p - s u m p a y m e n t f e ll s h o r t b e c a u s e it fa i l ed com pl et el y t o acc ou ntfor pay m ent s J on el l a H ol l om an w ou l d rec ei ve un der the pl a ns ’ L a s tS ur vi vorO pt i on i n the e ve nttha ts he out l i ve d O t i s H ol l om a n. T h e p ro v i si o n ati ssu e i s w o rd ed th e sam e w ay i n b o th p l an s: 4 . T h e P a r tic ip a n t m a y r e q u e s t, a t le a s t o n e ( 1 ) y e a rp r io rto h is a c tu a l r e tir e m e n t, th a t h e r e c e iv e a r e d u c e d m o n th ly b e n e f it w i th the pr ovi s i on tha thi s s pous e r e c e i ve a s ur vi vorbe ne f i tf or l i f e ; pr ovi de d, the C om m i tt e e m a y de c i de i n i t s s ol e di s c r e t i on w he the rt o honors uc h r e que s t . S uc h r e duc e d a m ount s w i l l be ca l cul at ed i nd i vi du al l y bas ed on the appl i cabl e A ctuari al A ssu m p t i o n s. T h e p a r tie s a g r e e th a t O tis H o llo m a n p r o p e r ly e le c te d th is o p tio n . M a il- W e ll c ont e nds , how e ve r , tha tonl y K a the r i ne H ol l om a n, O t i s H ol l om a n’ s w i f e a tthe t i m e he e l e c t e d the opt i on, c oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d s ur vi vorbe ne f i t s . T he H ol l om a ns17

s a y th a t J o n e lla H o llo m a n , O tis H o llo m a n ’s c u rr e n t w if e , is a ls o e n title d to s ur vi vorbe ne f

i t s unde rthe pl a ns . T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tbe c a us e the pa r t i c i pa ntha d t o r e que s tthe L a s tS ur vi vorO pt i on i n a dva nc e a nd be c a us e the am ou ntof the re du ce d p ay m ent s w ou l d b e c al cul at ed base d o n the j oi ntl i fe e x p e c ta n c y o f

th e p a r tic ip a n t a n d h is s p o u s e , th e te r m s o f th e p la n s p la in ly i ndi c a t e d tha tonl y the pa r t i c i pa nt s ’ s pous e a tthe t i m e of the e l e c t i on w oul d be el i g i b l e t o recei v e su rv i v o r b en efi t s. T he H ol l om ans c on t end, ho w ever , thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on w as i n co rrectfo r tw o reaso n s: fi rst , th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s d eci si o n i n B o g g s v . B o g g s, 520 U . S . 833 ( 1997) , s uppor t s the i rvi e w ; a nd, s e c ond, the t e r m s of the pl a ns m a de J one l l a H ol l om a n O t i s H ol l om a n’ s be ne f i c i a ry . W e r e m a i n unpe r s ua de d. I n B o g g s , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t th e jo in t a n d s u r v iv o ra n n u ity pr ovi s i on of

E R I S A , 29 U . S . C . § 1055, pr e e m pt e d L oui s i a na s t a t e l a w pe r m i tt i ng t e s t a m e nt a ry tr a ns f

e r s of c om m uni ty pr ope r ty i nt e r e s t s i n undi s tr i but e d pe ns i on be ne f i t s . B oggs , 520 U . S . a t844. T he appe l l a nt s a r gue tha tB oggs i de nt i f i e d the pr ot e c t i on of

s ur vi vi ng s pous e s a s one of the c or e purpos e s be hi nd § 1055. B ut B oggs doe s nots uppor tthe appe l l a nt s ’ c l a i m . F i r s tof a l l , the pr ovi s i on the S u p r e m e C o u r t w a s in te rp r e tin g in B o g g s , § 1 0 5 5 , d o e s n o t ap p ly to “to p h a t” pl ans l i ke the pl ans a ti ss ue i n thi s c as e. 29 U . S . C . § 1 05 1(2) (e xcl ud i ng t op hat18

pl ans f rom E R IS A ’ s part i ci pat i on and v es t i ng re qu i re m ent s) . B ute ve n i f

the s t a tut ory purpos e of § 1055 w e r e s om e how r e l e va nt , the pl ai nt i ff s’ ar gu m entst i l l w ou l d n otsucc ee d. W hen O t i s H ol l om an re t i re d and w hen h e b e g a n r e c e iv in g h is p la n p a y m e n ts , h is s p o u s e w a s K a th e r in e H o llo m a n . J o n e lla H o ll o m an m ar ried O ti s H o ll o m an o n ly af ter K ath er in e H o ll o m an ’s d ea th . E R IS A ’s i nt er es ti n p rot ec t i ng survi vi ng spou se s does notext end so faras t o requi re that re t i re m entpl ans e nsure c on t i nu ed benefi tpaym ent s t o anyon e w ho m a pl an p a r t i c i p a n tmi g h tma rry a f t e rh i s r e t i r e me n ta n d a f t e rth e d e a th o f

h i s s p o u s e . To begi n w i th, even un der j oi ntand survi vo r a nn ui ty pl ans thatar e di re ct l y gov erned by § 1 05 5, survi vo r a nn ui ty benef i t s a re on l y a vai l abl e t o a spou se w ho w as m a rr i e d t o the pa r t i c i pa ntw he n the a nnui ty pa y m e nt s be ga n. S e e D or n v. I nt ’ l B hd. of E l ec . W orkers , 21 1 F . 3d 93 8, 94 2 (5t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( per c uri am ) ( no t i ng that u n d e ra n E R I S A q u a lif

ie d jo in t a n d s u r v iv o ra n n u ity , “( 1 ) th e . . . a n n u ity p a y m e n ts c e a s e a t th e d e a th o f th e p a r tic ip a n t s p o u s e , r e g a r d le s s o f w h e th e rh is de a th oc c ur s be f

or e ora f t e rthe de a th of

the non- pa r t i c i pa nts pous e ; a nd ( 2) i f , but onl y i f , the non- pa r t i c i pa nts pous e s ur vi ve s the pa r t i c i pa nts pous e doe s the s u r v iv o r ’s a n n u ity k ic kin .” ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ) . I n a d d itio n , th e s ta tu te e x p r e s s ly perm i t s e m pl oyer s t o res tri ctj oi ntand survi vo r a nn ui ty benef i t s by r equi ri ng that the pa r t i c i pa nta nd s pous e be m a rr i e d f ora tl e a s tone y e a rbe f

or e the e a r l i e rof

theThe re levant provision appe ars in sec tion V.A.3 of each plan: 4 3. The benefit will be payable during theParticipant’s life a fter retirement, and not le ss t ha n 1 80 monthly

pa y mentswi ll b emadeto t

hePartic ipa

nt o r to h is B e ne fi c iary

in t hee vent o f t

hePartic ipa

nt’ s d e ath p ri or

to re c e iving18 0 mo nthly pa y ments . 19 s t a r t i ng da t e of

the pa r t i c i pa nt ’ s a nnui ty orthe da t e of the pa r t i c i pa nt ’ s de a th. 29 U . S . C . § 1 05 5(b)(4), (f

)( 1). Iti s c l ea r, then, that§ 1 05 5 o nl y c on t em pl at es p a y m e n ts to a s u r v iv in g s p o u s e w h o is m a rr ie d to th e p a r tic ip a n t w h e n a n n u ity p a y m e n ts b e g in a n d o u tliv e s th e p a r tic ip a n t. S e c tio n 1 0 5 5 d o e s n o t e v e n in d ir e c tly s uppor tthe H ol l om a ns ’ pos i t i on. T h e ap p e lla n ts ’ s e c o n d a r g u m e n t is th a t th e te r m s o f th e p la n s m a d e J o n e lla H ol l om an O t i s H ol l om an’ s benef i ci ary. T hey poi ntt o a prov i si on defi ni ng the t erm

“ B en efi ci ary” i n th e P l an an d p ro v i d i n g th atth e p art i ci p an t ’ s su rv i v i n g sp o u se be c om e s the be ne f

i c i a ry i f the pa r t i c i pa ntdi e s w i thoutha vi ng de s i gna t e d a benefi ci ary. T hi s def

i ni t i on bear s no rel at i on t o the L as tS urvi vo r O pt i on un der di s put e . I n e a c h of

the r e t i r e m e ntpl a ns a ti s s ue , pa y m e nt s t o pl a n be ne f i c i a r i e s a nd paym ent s t o a survi vi ng spou se un der the L as tS urvi vo r O pt i on ar e s epar at e, di st i nctfe atures . P ay m ent s t o b enef i ci ar i es ar e gov erned b y s ec t i on V . A . 3, w hi ch p ro v i d es th ati f th e p art i ci p an td i es b efo re receiving 1 8 0 m o n th l y p aym en t s, pa y m e nt s w i l l c ont i nue t o the pa r t i c i pa nt ’ s be ne f i c i a r i e s unt i l the pa r t i c i pa nta nd h i s b en efi ci ari es h av e received a t o t al o f 1 8 0 m o n th l y p aym en t s. T h e L ast 420

S urvi vo r O pt i on i s gov erned b y adi ff er entse ct i on , se ct i on V . A . 4, w hi ch prov i des f orl i f e t i m e pa y m e nt s t o a s ur vi vi ng s pous e i f the pa r t i c i pa ntha s e l e c t e d the opt i on a n d th e e le c tio n h a s b e e n ap p r o v e d . O n ly a s u r v iv in g s p o u s e is e lig ib le f o rb e n e f its unde rthe L a s tS ur vi vorO pt i on. N othi ng i n the t e r m s of the pl a ns s ugge s t s tha tthe b en ef it s o f th e L as t S u rv iv o r O p ti o n p as s to th e p lan b en ef iciary if th e p ar ti cip an t’ s sp o u se d i es b efo re th e p art i ci p an td o es. I n s hor t , w e c a n di s c e rn no r e a s on t o r e j e c tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the L a s tS ur vi vorO pt i on. D. F in a lly , th e H o llo m a n s s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in r e je c tin g th e ir cl ai m s thatM ai l -W el l brea ched fi du ci ary obl i gat i on s. T he di stri ctcourtno t ed that the pl ai nt i ff

s had fa i l ed t o exp l ai n w hatprec i se ac t s had brea ched fi du ci ary o b lig a tio n s . I t f

u r th e ro b s e r v e d , c o rr e c tly , th a t th e f id u c ia ry r e s p o n s ib ility pr ovi s i ons of

E R I S A , 29 U . S . C . §§ 1101–1114, do notappl y t o t op ha tpl a ns . 29 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (1); se e a l so G ol dst ei n, 25 1 F . 3d at44 3 (“ [W ] e r ej ec t [d efen d an t ’ s] co n t en t i o n th at , b ecau se E R IS A ’ s d efi n i t i o n al sect i o n l i st s a

‘ f i duc i a ry ’ a s one w ho e xe r c i s e s di s c r e t i on i n i nt e rpr e t i ng the t e r m s of a pl a n, a d mi n i s tr a t o r s o f

t o p h a tp l a n s a r e a l s o f

i d u c i a r i e s . To b e g i n w i th , ERI SA expl i ci t l y s t at es thatt op hatpl ans a re no tsubj ec tt o the E R IS A ’ s f i du ci ary21

r e qui r e m e nt s . F ur the r , i ti s w e l l e s t a bl i s he d i n the c a s e l a w tha tthe r e i s no c a us e of ac t i on for bre ac h o f f

i du ci ary duty i nv ol vi ng a t op hatpl an. ” ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed)) ; R e l i a bl e H om e H e a l th C a r e , I nc . , v. U ni on C e nt . I ns . C o. , 295 F . 3d 505, 512, 516 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( f

i ndi ng tha tthe pl a i nt i f

f c oul d notr e c ove rf

r om a pl a n pr ovi de rf

or b reach o f fi d u ci ary d u ty b ecau se th e p l an w as a t o p h atp l an ); G arrat tv . K n o w l es, 245 F . 3d 941, 949 ( 7th C i r . 2001) ( “ G a rr a ttha d s ugge s t e d tha tde s pi t e pr e e m pt i on of hi s s t a t e l a w c l a i m s , E R I S A w oul d pe r m i thi s s ui ta ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s f or b re ac h o f f

id u ciar y d u ty. H o w ev er , sin ce a to p h at p lan is ex em p t fro m E R IS A ’s f i duc i a ry rul e s , G a rr a ttw oul d ha ve no ba s i s t o br i ng s uc h a c l a i m . ” ) ; D e m e ry v. E xt e ba nk D e f

e rr e d C om p. P l a n ( B ) , 216 F . 3d 283, 290 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( “ [ A ] s the f i duc i a ry r e s pons i bi l i ty pr ovi s i ons of E R I S A do notappl y t o t op ha tpl a ns , t o the e x t e n tth a tp l a i n t i f

f s ’ c l a i m f

o rb r e a c h o f

f i d u c i a ry d u ty wa s b a s e d u p o n E R I S A, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y di sm i ss ed i t . ” ( ci t at i on om i tt ed)) . B e c a us e the tw o pl a ns a ti s s ue a r e both t op ha tpl a ns , M a i l - W e l l ow e d no f i duc i a ry dut i e s t o the H ol l om a ns unde rE R I S A . I tne c e s s a r i l y f ol l ow s tha tthe H ol l om ans have no cl ai m agai nstM ai l -W el l for bre ac h o f f i du ci ary dut i es un der E R I S A . H a vi ng f

ound tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y i nt e rpr e t e d the pr ovi s i ons of th e tw o r e tir e m e n t p la n s a t is s u e a n d th e g o v e rn in g la w , w e h a v e little d if f ic u lty c o n c lu d in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly g r a n te d f in a l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to22

M ai l -W el l o n al l o f ap p el l an t s’ cl ai m s. IV T he H ol l om ans a l so ar gu e thatw e s ho ul d revers e a nd re m and for tri al be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y de ni e d s e ve r a l m ot i ons the y f i l e d r e que s t i ng thatthe courtcom pel the defendant s t o coo pera t e i n d i sc ov ery. W e a re unpe r s ua de d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on. B y c our tor de r , di s c ove ry i n the c a s e w a s or i gi na l l y s c he dul e d t o e nd on F e brua ry 7, 2004. A f

t e rtha tda t e pa s s e d, on M a r c h 3, 2004, the H ol l om a ns f i l e d a m ot i on t o e xt e nd t i m e f ordi s c ove ry ; M a i l - W e l l di d notoppos e the m ot i on. T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d t o e xt e nd di s c ove ry unt i l M a y 7, 2004, butthe di s tr i c tj udge ex p ressl y w arn ed th e p art i es th atsh e w o u l d n o tg ran tan y fu rth er ex t en si o n s. Indeed, the courtob se rved, “ T he part i es ar e i nstruct ed t o con du ctdi sc ov ery i n such a w ay as t o con cl ud e a l l nece ss ary di sc ov ery w i thi n thi s t i m e per i od , as no further ext ensi on s w i l l be grant ed. ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed). O n M ay 7, 20 04 , the l as tday of the ext ended d i sc ov ery per i od , the pl ai nt i ff s f i l e d a num be rof

m ot i ons t o c om pe l di s c ove ry . T he f i r s tof the s e m ot i ons s ought to c o m p e l d e p o s itio n s o f th r e e in d iv id u a ls w h o m th e d e f e n d a n ts h a d id e n tif

ie d in the i rr e s pons e s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s a s pe r s ons w ho m i ghtha ve know l e dge pe r t i ne nt to th e p la in tif

f s ’ c la im s ; s o u g h t to c o m p e l th e d e f e n d a n ts to s u p p le m e n t th e ir23

r e s pons e s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s t o i de nt i f y pe r s ons w ho pos s e s s e d the r e l e va nt in f o r m a tio n ; s o u g h t to c o m p e l p r o d u c tio n o f d o c u m e n ts , in c lu d in g th e d o c u m e n t in w h i ch O t i s H o l l o m an m ad e h i s sp o u sal el ect i o n ; an d m o v ed fo r san ct i o n s ag ai n st the defense att orneys un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 92 7. A se cond m ot i on soug htan order com pel l i ng an i nd i vi du al t o com pl y w i th a subp oena. T he pl ai nt i ff s’ thi rd di s c ove ry m ot i on s oughtt o c om pe l c om pl i a nc e w i th a n A pr i l 27, 2004, s ubpoe na orderi ng M ar sh & M cL ennan, the parentcom pany of M er ce r H um an R es ou rc es C ons ul t i ng, t o pr oduc e c e r t a i n doc um e nt s a nd t o pr oduc e one of i t s e m pl oy e e s f

or d e p o s itio n . F in a lly , a f

o u r th ap p lic a tio n s o u g h t to c o m p e l W a c h o v ia to c o m p ly w i th a n A pr i l 15, 2004, s ubpoe na f ordoc um e nt s be l i e ve d t o be r e l a t e d t o the p l ai n t i ffs’ cl ai m s. T he H ol l om ans w i thd re w the se cond m ot i on before the di stri ctcourtrul ed o n i t . T h e co u rtd en i ed th e rem ai n i n g th ree m o t i o n s. T he H ol l om ans m ake tw o p ri nci pal ar gu m ent s: fi rs t , they s ay thatthe di stri ct c our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tf ound tha tthe pl a i nt i f

f s ha d f a i l e d t o m a ke good fa i th eff ort s t o res ol ve the di sc ov ery di sput es as re qu i re d b y R ul e 37 o f the F eder al R u le s o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e ; s e c o n d , th e y c la im th a t th e f a c t th a t th e y f

ile d th e ir no t i ce s of deposi t i on and m ot i on s t o com pel w i thi n the di sc ov ery per i od ent i t l ed th em t o o rd ers co m p el l i n g d i sco v ery.24

T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d s o m e o f th e m o tio n s f

o rr e a s o n s u n r e la te d to w h eth er th e H o l l o m an s h ad m ad e g o o d fai th effo rt s t o co n fer w i th th e d efen d an t s: T he c our tde ni e d the m ot i on t o c om pe l pr oduc t i on of doc um e nt s be c a us e the H ol l om a ns f

a i l e d t o a c c ur a t e l y c i t e the i ror i gi na l di s c ove ry r e que s t s a s r e qui r e d by lo c a l c o u r t ru le s . T h e c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n to c o m p e l c o m p lia n c e w ith s ubpoe na s t o M a r s h & M c L e nna n a nd W a c hovi a be c a us e i tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on ov ersubp oenas i ss ued b y other c ou rt s. A nd the courtdeni ed the m ot i on t o com pel M ar sh & M cL ennan t o p rodu ce i t s e m pl oyee for deposi t i on because the pl ai nt i ff s f a i l e d t o pr ove the s ubpoe na e ve ri s s ue d. T he pl a i nt i f f s ’ a r gum e nt s the r e f

or e ha ve little b e a r in g o n th e s e ru lin g s , a n d th e p la in tif f s h a v e p r o v id e d n o r e a s o n f o ru s to rev erse th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n s o n th ese m o t i o n s. T he r e m a i ni ng m ot i ons s oughtt o c om pe l s uppl e m e nt a t i on a nd the d e p o s itio n s o f

th r e e in d iv id u a ls n a m e d in th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ r e s p o n s e s to in te rr o g a to r ie s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m b a s e d o n w h a t it te r m e d a f a ilu r e to w ork w i th the defendant s i n g oo d fai th t o schedul e the depo si t i on s a nd ensure that th e d efen d an t s co u l d co m p l y i n a t i m el y w ay w i th th ei r req u est s. A f t e rthor ough r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e r e m a i n unpe r s ua de d. A tbe s t , the pl a i nt i f f s ’ a r gum e nt s m e r e l y ur ge a di f f e r e nti nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the f a c t s . T he pl a i nt i f f s ha ve nots how n, how e ve r , tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the25

fa ct s w as un t enabl e, or thatdenyi ng the m ot i on s s om ehow fe l l ou t si de the broad

“ ra ng e of c ho i ce ” open t o the di stri ctcourtun der these ci rc um st ance s, U ni t ed S t a t e s v. K e l l y , 888 F . 2d 732, 745 ( 11th C i r . 1989) . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i r m the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sco v ery ru l i n g s i n al l resp ect s. V In the H ol l om ans’ appel l at e bri ef , the H ol l om ans’ att orney, C hri st op her V a ughn, a l s o r a i s e d a n appe a l t o a s a nc t i ons or de rthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d on hi m un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 92 7 for fi l i ng m ot i on s t o com pel di sc ov ery thatthe di stri ct courtfoun d t o h ave been w i tho utm er i tand i n b ad fa i th. A s f or thi s i ss ue, w e l ac k ju r is d ic tio n b e c a u s e V a u g h n d id n o t f ile a tim e ly n o tic e o f

ap p e a l. T h e fed eral co u rt s o f ap p eal s are co u rt s o f l i m i t ed j u ri sd i ct i o n . W e m u st c o n s id e rq u e s tio n s c o n c e rn in g o u rap p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n o n o u ro w n m o tio n e v e n if ne i the rpa r ty ha s r a i s e d the i s s ue . B oc he s e v. T ow n of P onc e I nl e t , 405 F . 3d 964, 97 4– 75 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). I ti s by now a bunda nt l y c l e a rtha ta t i m e l y a nd pr ope r l y f i l e d not i c e of appe a l i s a m a nda t ory pr e r e qui s i t e t o appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on. T or r e s v. O a kl a nd S c a ve nge rC o. , 487 U . S . 312, 315 ( 1988) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obi ns on, 361 U . S . 22 0, 22 4 (19 60 )) . T hi s rul e i s absol ut e a nd i nfl exi bl e. H ow ever , court s a re forgi vi ng i n d et erm i ni ng w hatconst i tut es ef fe ct i ve no t i ce of appeal . T hu s, a c ou rt26

f i l i ng m a y s e r ve a s a n e f f e c t i ve not i c e of

appe a l a s l ong a s i tc l e a r l y i ndi c a t e s the pa r ty ’ s i nt e nt i on t o appe a l a nd c om m uni c a t e s the ba s i c i nf or m a t i on r e qui r e d by R ul e 3(c )( 1) of the F eder al R ul es of A pp el l at e P roce du re : the nam es of the part i es t a ki ng the appe a l ; the j udgm e ntoror de rbe i ng appe a l e d; a nd the c our tt o w hi c h the pa r t i e s a r e t a ki ng the appe a l . S e e R i na l do v. C orbe tt , 256 F . 3d 1276, 1278–79 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ; Smi th v . Ba rry , 5 0 2 U . S. 2 4 4 , 2 4 7

– 4 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; Fe d . R. A p p . P. 3(c) (1). T he no t i ce need no tal w ay s be e xp l i ci t ; i n som e c i rc um st ance s not i ce m ay be a de qua t e w he n the pa r ty ’ s i nt e ntt o appe a l i s “ obj e c t i ve l y c l e a r ” f r om a l l of

the ci rc um st ance s. F ed. R . A pp . P . 3(c) advi sory com m i tt ee ’ s not e. V a ughn, how e ve r , f

a i l e d t o m e e te ve n the ba r e s tof the s e l e ni e nt re qu i re m ent s. H e di d n otfi l e a ny do cum entor se ri es of do cum ent s thati nd i ca t ed h e so u g h tt o ap p eal th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er i m p o si n g att o rn eys’ fees. N o t ab l y, V au g h n d i d n o tfi l e a sep arat e n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n h i s o w n n am e, an d h e d i d n o tl i st h im s e lf a s a p a r ty o n th e H o llo m a n s ’ n o tic e o f ap p e a l. “T h e f

a ilu r e to n a m e a p a r ty i n a not i c e of

appe a l . . . c ons t i tut e s a f a i l ur e of tha tpa r ty t o appe a l . ” T or r e s , 487 U . S . at31 4. T he H ol l om ans’ appel l ant s’ bri ef al so di d n otse rve a s e ff ec t i ve no t i ce of V a ughn’ s i nt e ntt o appe a l , be c a us e i tw a s notf i l e d unt i l a f

t e rthe de a dl i ne f

or f ilin g n o tic e o f

ap p e a l. I n C orpor a t i on of

the P r e s i di ng B i s hop of the C hur c h of

J e s us C hr i s tof27

L att er -D ay S ai nt s v. A ss oci at ed C on tra ct ors, Inc. , 87 7 F . 2d 93 8 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ), w e a gree d t o h ea r a n app ea l fr om R ul e 11 sanct i on s a w ar ded agai nstthe pl ai nt i ff and i t s a tt orney e ven t ho ug h the no t i ce of appeal on l y nam ed the pl ai nt i ff as an appel l ant . Id. at93 9 n . 1. In thatca se , ho w ever , the di stri ctcourthad i m po se d s a nc t i ons on the pl a i nt i f f a nd the a tt orne y j oi nt l y a nd s e ve r a l l y , a nd the not i c e of appeal spec i fi ca l l y s t at ed thatthe sa nct i on s w er e the subj ec tof the appeal . Id. In thi s c a s e , by c ontr a s t , the s a nc t i ons w e r e i m pos e d onl y on the a tt or ne y , a nd the not i c e of appe a l s t a t e d onl y tha tthe pa r t i e s ( notthe l a w y e r ) w e r e appe a l i ng the ju d g m e n t o f

th e c o u r t. T h is c a s e is th e r e f o r e m o r e lik e B o g le v . O r a n g e C o u n ty B oard of C ou nty C om m i ss i on er s, 16 2 F . 3d 65 3 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ), w here w e r ef used t o he a ra n a tt orne y ’ s appe a l f r om R ul e 11 s a nc t i ons i m pos e d onl y a ga i ns tthe att orney because the no t i ce of appeal on l y l i st ed the cl i entas an appel l ant . Id. at 661. V a ughn di d notl i s thi m s e l f a s a n appe l l a nton the H ol l om a ns ’ not i c e of ap p e a l, a n d h e d id n o t f ile a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l in h is o w n n a m e . N o rw a s it “o b jectiv ely c learfr o m th e n o ti ce ,” F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 (c ) a d v iso ry co m m ittee’s no t e, thatV augh n w ou l d b e app ea l i ng the sa nct i on s order . V augh n there fore fa i l ed t o f i l e a pr ope rnot i c e of

appe a l , a nd w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o he a rhi s appe a l f r om the sa nct i on s order . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a re constra i ned t o d i sm i ss V augh n’ s app ea l28

f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. AFFI RM ED I N PART; DI SM I SS ED I N PART.