03C5044 Bruce G. Howell vs. Carl F. Koenemann, et al Page 1 of 2

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 5044 DATE 10/25/2007

CASE

TITLE

Bruce G. Howell vs. Carl F. Koenemann, et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Oral arguments and status conference convened. The court entered rulings as follows: Plaintiff’s motion to

compel Defendant to answer certain deposition questions (223) is granted. Defendant David Devonshire’s

unopposed motion for summary judgment [263] is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of David

Devonshire and against Plaintiffs; claims against him in their entirety are dismissed with prejudice.

Defendant Donald Jones’s unopposed motion for summary judgment [267] is granted. Judgment is entered

in favor of Donald Jones and against Plaintiffs; claims against him in their entirety are dismissed with

prejudice. Defendants’ motion to alter the class definition [271] is granted. Defendants’ motion for entry of

final judgment against Plaintiff Bruce Howell (252) is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct order on

class certification (258) is granted, provided that, as agreed, individual Defendants and officers and directors

are excluded, and persons who signed valid releases of their claims are also excluded from the class. 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend/Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings [275] granted in part and denied in part;

parties to submit proposed order setting new dates for briefing of summary judgment and for submission of

the final pretrial order. Status hearing held and continued to 12/12/2007 at 9:00. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

00:57

STATEMENT

Oral arguments and status conference convened. The court entered rulings as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to answer certain deposition questions (223) is granted. The

parties agree that under Seventh Circuit law, a fiduciary of an ERISA plan must make available to the

beneficiary, upon request, any communications with an attorney that are intended to assist in the

administration of the plan. Plaintiff will have leave to depose Randy Boldt for two hours to determine

whether, while acting in a fiduciary capacity, Defendants obtained attorney advice concerning 404(c)

compliance, and the propriety of making Motorola stock an investment option for plan participants. Such

advice, if provided to a fiduciary acting in that capacity, is properly discoverable by plan members.

2. Defendant David Devonshire’s unopposed motion for summary judgment [263] is granted. Judgment

is entered in favor of David Devonshire and against Plaintiffs; claims against him in their entirety are

dismissed with prejudice.

3. Defendant Donald Jones’s unopposed motion for summary judgment [267] is granted. Judgment is

entered in favor of Donald Jones and against Plaintiffs; claims against him in their entirety are dismissed with

prejudice.

Case: 1:03-cv-05044 Document #: 280 Filed: 10/25/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2604
STATEMENT

03C5044 Bruce G. Howell vs. Carl F. Koenemann, et al Page 2 of 2

4. Defendants’ motion to alter the class definition [271] is granted. Individual Defendants and all

directors and officers of Motorola are excluded from the class definition. 

5. Defendants’ motion for entry of final judgment against Plaintiff Bruce Howell (252) is granted. The

court will enter a Rule 54(b) judgment on Mr. Howell’s claims.

6. Plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct order on class certification (258) is granted, provided that, as

agreed, individual Defendants and officers and directors are excluded, and persons who signed valid releases

of their claims are also excluded from the class. The court notes that although enforceability of a release may

be a fact-based question, a written release is presumptively valid, and one who signs a release ordinarily has

the burden of demonstrating that it is not enforceable.

7. Plaintiff’s motion to amend/Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings [275] granted in part and denied

in part; parties to submit proposed order setting new dates for briefing of summary judgment and for

submission of the final pretrial order. 

Status hearing held and continued to 12/12/2007 at 9:00. 

Case: 1:03-cv-05044 Document #: 280 Filed: 10/25/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2605