1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EUGENE SCALIA, )

Secretary of Labor, United States )

Department of Labor, )

) Case Number: 

Petitioner, )

) Judge 

v. )

)

ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, LLC )

)

)

Respondent. )

SECRETARY’S PETITION TO ENFORCE

ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

Petitioner EUGENE SCALIA, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor 

(“Secretary”), hereby alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Petition is brought to compel ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, LLC, (“Respondent”)

to comply with an Administrative Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the Regional Director of the 

Chicago Regional Office of the Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) of the 

United States Department of Labor in an investigation conducted pursuant to section 504 of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1134. 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this Petition pursuant to Sections 9

and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 49 and 50, as made applicable to 

ERISA by Sections 504(c) and 502(e)(1) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1134(c) & 1132(e)(1). 

3. On July 30, 2019, EBSA opened an investigation of the Respondent (Ex. A at ¶ 2,

attached hereto and made a part hereof) (Ex. A is the “Declaration of EBSA Senior Investigator 

20-cv-2138

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
2

Celenna Loggins In Support of Secretary’s Petition to Compel Respondent to Comply with

Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued on November 5, 2019”).

4. The Respondent provides services to benefit plans covered by ERISA. Alight 

provides recordkeeping, administrative, and consulting services to its ERISA plan clients to 

assist them in managing their employee benefit plans. (Ex. A at ¶ 3).

5. The Respondent is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. (Ex. A at ¶ 3).

6. Venue lies in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. § 49 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the Respondent is located in Lincolnshire, Lake

County, Illinois, within this district. 

THE INVESTIGATION AND SUBPOENA

7. From July 30, 2019, through the present, EBSA has been conducting an 

investigation of the Respondent under ERISA § 504(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1134(a)(1), to determine 

whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of Title I of ERISA or any 

regulation or order promulgated thereunder. (Ex. A at ¶ 2).

8. In the course of its investigation, EBSA determined that obtaining certain 

information from Respondent was essential to determine whether any ERISA violations occurred 

or were about to occur regarding ERISA-covered plans. (Id. at ¶ 4(a)). Because Alight handles 

sensitive client information related to ERISA-covered plans, EBSA offered Alight an 

accommodation subpoena to protect it from any consequences of cooperating without a legal 

requirement. (Id. at ¶ 4(b)). 

9. On November 5, 2019, Regional Director Monhart, pursuant to authority vested 

by ERISA § 504(c), 29 U.S.C. § 1134(c), issued an Administrative Subpoena Duces Tecum

(“Subpoena”) directed to Respondent. (Id. at ¶ 4(h); Ex. D-F). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
3

10. On November 12, 2019, Respondent received the Subpoena as reflected on the 

USPS Certified Mail receipt, and Respondent had until December 9, 2019, to respond. (Ex. A at 

¶ 4(h) and (i); Ex. E). 

11. After receiving an extension from EBSA, the Respondent, pursuant to the 

Subpoena, was required to produce certain documents relating to EBSA’s investigation of the 

Fund on or before January 3, 2020. (Ex. A at ¶ 4(j)).

RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA

12. On January 3, 2020, the Respondent provided a limited number of documents and 

provided a 39-page letter containing numerous objections. (Ex. A at ¶ 4(o), Ex. K).

13. The Respondent provided responses to 6 of the 32 requests, partial responses to 

10 of the 32 requests, and no responsive documents to 16 of the 32 requests. (Ex. A at ¶ 4(q)-(s), 

Ex. K).

14. Respondent provided no responsive documents to the following 16 requests:

No. 6: All documents relating to any ERISA plan client that terminated Alight’s 

services, including all: 

a. Reasons for the termination; 

b. Names of the plan client, the plan fiduciaries, and plan agent or 

representative, including contact information; and

c. Communications and notifications provided by the ERISA plan client to 

Alight relating to the termination.

No. 7: All documents received by Alight, or any Service Provider, for services 

provided to ERISA plan clients, including all responses to ERISA plan clients, 

relating to: 

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
4

a. Trading errors; operational errors, valuation errors; computer coding 

errors; billing, invoicing errors; administrative, communication errors; 

breaches of investment guidelines, constraints, restrictions and any 

corresponding corrective and disciplinary actions concerning the above; 

b. Complaints; 

c. Communications and notifications of unauthorized actions or unlawful 

activity; and 

d. Admissions of misconduct. 

No. 9: All documents relating to any regulatory investigations, examinations, or 

inquiries in which Alight is a party.

No. 10: All documents and communications relating to advertising, promotion, 

and marketing for ERISA plan clients.

No. 11: All contracts, agreements, arrangements, and fee schedules used by 

Alight to provide services to ERISA plan clients.

No. 13: All documents identifying each current and former ERISA plan client, 

including: 

a. Name; 

b. Sponsor name and address; 

c. Employer identification number and plan number; 

d. Name(s) of plan trustee(s); 

e. Name(s) of custodian(s); 

f. Date Alight started to provide service(s); and

g. Current detailed listing of assets.

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
5

No. 15: Fiduciary liability insurance policy, if applicable.

No. 18: All documents relating to communications, event logs, and reports of any 

incident involving information security and/or cybersecurity relating to any 

ERISA plan client.

No. 19: All documents and communications relating to fraud reports for any 

ERISA plan client and related communications.

No. 22: All documents and communications relating to Alight’s physical access 

controls, including key cards, biometric controls, and video cameras relating to 

information security and/or cybersecurity.

No. 23: All documents and communications relating to any incident response 

plan made by Alight or any ERISA plan client relating to Alight’s services.

No. 27: All documents and communications relating to termination or discipline 

of any Alight employee for misuse of Alight’s data or systems or unauthorized 

access to ERISA plan clients’ accounts.

No. 28: All documents relating to communications with ERISA plan clients 

regarding cybersecurity incidents.

No. 29: All documents and communications relating to requests from any ERISA 

plan client to create, implement, or have access to cybersecurity procedures.

No. 30: All documents and communications relating to unauthorized distributions 

of any ERISA plan client’s account.

No. 31: All documents and communications relating to Alight’s settlement 

and/or restorative payments with ERISA plan clients or its participants for 

unauthorized distribution of any ERISA plan client’s accounts.

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
6

15. On January 21, 2020, the Secretary met with the Respondent’s attorneys to 

discuss the Respondent’s objections and to seek compliance with the Subpoena. After meeting, 

the Respondent failed to produce any additional documents and instead renewed its objections by 

letter dated February 3, 2020. (Ex. A at ¶ 4(t)-(z), Ex. R).

16. In its letter, Alight made several general objections to the Secretary’s subpoena, 

including:

A. a general objection that EBSA does not have the authority under ERISA to 

request the information. Alight does not elaborate other than to state that “the 

very nature of the subpoena and investigation indicates that much of the 

information is beyond EBSA’s authority under ERISA.” In several requests, 

Alight made the same conclusory objection “the information and documents 

are outside the statutory scope of the DOL’s authority.” However, EBSA has 

broad authority to conduct investigations and to seek all such documents that 

may assist in its investigation. See, e.g., Chao v. Koresko, 2004 WL 1102381, 

at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 2004) (recognizing “Section 504 of ERISA gives the 

Secretary of Labor broad authority to conduct investigations.”). EBSA may 

seek information that “might assist in determining whether any person is 

violating or has violated any provision of Title I of ERISA.” Donovan v. 

National Bank of Alaska, 696 F.2d 678, 684 (9th Cir. 1983).

B. a general objection that the requests seek information protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint 

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
7

defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and other undefined 

“statutory or common law privileges, immunities or protections.” However, 

Alight never identifies any specific information for which any of these 

privileges could possibly apply and failed to provide a specific privilege log as 

provided for in the administrative subpoena instructions.

C. a general objection that the requests are “too indefinite, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and/or impact Alight’s normal operations.” However, other than 

saying some requests seek “all documents,” Alight does not explain how any 

specific request was indefinite, broad, burdensome or impacting Alight’s 

normal operations.

D. the general objection that the requests seek confidential, proprietary, 

intelligence, trade secret, and information protected under “Applicable Rules.” 

Alight does not explain how any specific requests are seeking such 

information or provide an explanation of the terms “Applicable Rules.” 

E. the general objection that the time period should be limited to May, 2017, 

because that is the date of a corporate spin-off creating a new corporate entity 

called “Alight.” However, Alight recognizes that Alight existed before this 

date, and it was only due to a corporate restructuring that the corporate name 

“Alight” came into existence. The Secretary maintains that documents in 

Alight’s possession should be produced even if they pre-date the change in the 

corporate structure.

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
8

17. In the same letter, Alight set out specific objections for the Secretary’s request for 

production, and actually repeat the same objections without providing any specific detail unique 

to the specific request for most of the requests. For instance:

A. Alight lists almost all terms in any request as “vague and ambiguous.” For 

example, in the first request, EBSA sought documents related to Alight’s 

organizational structure, management composition, and ownership. Alight 

objected to 13 terms, almost every noun in the request, including such terms 

as “owners,” “affiliates,” “subsidiaries,” “managers,” etc. The DOL met with 

Alight on Jan. 21, 2019, and tried to provide further information responding to

the objections dealing with the alleged vagueness of terms, but Alight only 

responded by stating all terms remained too vague.

B. Alight also objects at times that the request seeks “confidential client 

information.” Alight did not elaborate on this objection except to say that all 

client information is confidential. EBSA routinely obtains information about 

ERISA-covered plans from service providers. Congress charged EBSA with 

investigating ERISA-covered plans and gave it broad subpoena authority to 

obtain information. EBSA routinely obtains ERISA-plan client information 

about ERISA-covered plans from service providers. To the extent any 

information EBSA obtains, may have some limit on disclosure to the public, 

not to EBSA, the Freedom of Information Act details the exemptions therein 

for such information. There is no such “client confidentiality” limit on the 

information that EBSA may seek under ERISA.

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
9

C. Alight made conclusory objection that EBSA’s subpoena exceeds the 

statutory scope. However, as detailed above, EBSA has broad authority to 

investigate violations or potential violations of ERISA and Alight has not 

offered any explanation on how the documents sought are outside this 

authority.

D. Alight states that requests are overly broad or unduly burdensome, but does 

not elaborate on any such claims. When the DOL met with Alight, Alight was 

unable to explain how any production would be unduly burdensome.

18. On March 9, 2020, the Secretary made another attempt to obtain compliance with 

the Subpoena by sending a letter to the Respondent’s counsel. (Ex. A at ¶ 4(bb), Ex. S).

19. The DOL’s attorney met again with Alight’s Counsel on March 12, 2020, and 

discussed all objections Alight’s Counsel wanted to discuss and provided detailed responses to 

each objection.

20. As of April 3, 2020, the Respondent has not produced any additional documents. 

(Ex. A at ¶ 4(cc)).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Court enter an order requiring Respondent 

ALIGHT SOLUTIONS LLC to appear on a date certain to show cause, if any there be, why its 

representative should not appear before the designated EBSA representative at such time and 

place as the Secretary or the Court may set, then and there to produce all responsive documents 

to the Subpoena; that the U.S. Marshals Service serve a copy of the Petition, accompanying 

exhibits, and Order to Show Cause upon Respondent; and that the Petitioner have such other and 

further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
10

Respectfully Submitted,

KATE S. O’SCANNLAIN

Solicitor of Labor

CHRISTINE Z. HERI

Regional Solicitor

/s/ Bruce C. Canetti

BRUCE C. CANETTI

P.O. Address: Attorneys for Eugene Scalia,

Office of the Solicitor Secretary of Labor,

U.S. Department of Labor United States Department of Labor,

230 South Dearborn Street Petitioner 

Eighth Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 353-3271

Fax: (312) 353-5698

Email: canetti.bruce@dol.gov

IL Bar No.: 6285867

Case: 1:20-cv-02138 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10