1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -

: 

Eugene Scalia, Secretary :

United States Department of Labor : 

: 

Petitioner : 

: CIVIL ACTION

v. : 

: File No.

Alight Solutions LLC 

: 

Respondent : 

: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -

DECLARATION OF CELENNA LOGGINS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO COMPEL 

RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 

ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019

Celenna Loggins, upon personal knowledge and reasonable belief, states as follows:

1. I am, and at all times mentioned below have been, a Senior Investigator employed

by the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the United States Department of Labor 

(“EBSA”), stationed in Chicago, Illinois.

2. Pursuant to my official duties as a Senior Investigator, in 2019, I was assigned to

conduct an investigation of Alight Solutions, LLC (“Alight”) to determine whether any person has 

violated or is about to violate any provision of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) or any regulation or order issued thereunder. The investigation was opened 

on July 30, 2019. 

3. The Chicago Regional Office of EBSA opened the investigation based on separate

plan-level investigations. In these investigations, EBSA determined Alight provides services to 

20-cv-2138
2

ERISA-covered plans. Alight provides recordkeeping, administrative, and consulting services to 

its ERISA plan clients to assist them in managing their employee benefit plans. Alight is 

headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. EBSA discovered that Alight processed unauthorized 

distributions as a result of cybersecurity breaches relating to its ERISA plan clients’ accounts. 

Further, in violation of its service provider agreements, Alight failed to immediately report 

cybersecurity breaches and the related unauthorized distributions to ERISA plan clients after its 

discoveries. In some instances, Alight failed to disclose cybersecurity breaches and unauthorized 

distributions to its ERISA plan clients for months, if at all. Alight also repeatedly failed to restore 

the unauthorized distribution amounts to its ERISA plan clients’ accounts. 

4. During the course of the investigation, EBSA determined that:

a. In order to identify whether any violations occurred with respect to Alight’s

services to its ERISA plan clients, certain documents were critical.

b. On September 11, 2019, I notified Ilene Grant (“Grant”), Associate General 

Counsel of Litigation, Employment, and Corporate Compliance at Alight that EBSA would 

issue an administrative subpoena (“Subpoena”) to Alight requesting documents which 

addressed topics such as data and information security. 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. During the call, Grant and I also discussed scheduling a conference call

to discuss potential documents before EBSA issued the Subpoena. Grant confirmed that 

the Subpoena should be mailed to her attention at Alight Solutions LLC, 4 Overlook Point, 

Lincolnshire, IL 60069. (See Exhibit A). 
3

c. On September 13, 2019, I emailed Grant to offer tentative dates for a 

conference call between EBSA and Alight to discuss potential documents which EBSA 

would request in the Subpoena. (See Exhibit B). On September 19, 2019, I emailed Grant 

to offer additional tentative dates. (See Exhibit B).

d. On October 7, 2019, Grant offered alternative dates, one of which EBSA 

accepted for the conference call. (See Exhibit B). At Grant’s request, on October 10, 2019, 

I indicated that the conference call topic would be Alight’s ERISA plan clients and data 

security. I also declared that individuals from Alight’s Security Operations Team or data 

security personnel may be able to address EBSA’s questions. (See Exhibit B). 

e. On October 16, 2019, EBSA hosted a conference call (“Call”) with Alight 

to discuss potential Subpoena requests. The following parties were on the Call:

• Celenna Loggins, Senior Investigator, EBSA

• Jeffrey Singer, Senior Investigator, EBSA

• Vishney Ambalavanar, Investigator, EBSA

• Ilene Grant, Associate General Counsel, Litigation, Employment, 

Corporate Compliance, Alight

• Dan Kasten, Assistant General Counsel, Alight

• Joe Burkard, Chief Security Officer, Alight

• Tola Sobitan, Chief Privacy Officer and Senior Legal Counsel, Alight

f. During the Call, the Chief Security Officer at Alight, Joe Burkhardt 

(“Burkhardt”), disclosed that he was in charge of Alight Security Services, which included 
4

being responsible for data security, information security, and cybersecurity. Burkhardt 

discussed Alight’s tiers of security policies, the existence of cybersecurity reports and 

testing, and cybersecurity event and incident terminology. (See Exhibit C).

g. Alight confirmed EBSA should send the Subpoena to Alight Solutions 

LLC, Attn: Ilene Grant, 4 Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, IL 60069. (See Exhibit C).

h. On November 5, 2019, I mailed the Subpoena via Certified Mail to Alight 

Solutions LLC, Attn: Ilene Grant, 4 Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, IL 60069. (See Exhibit

D). The Subpoena required Alight to produce responsive documents on or before 

December 9, 2019, which related to EBSA’s investigation. (See Exhibit D). 

i. The United States Postal Service (“USPS”), Domestic Return Receipt, 

shows that, on November 12, 2019, USPS delivered the Subpoena to Alight Solutions LLC, 

Attn: Ilene Grant, 4 Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, IL 60069. According to the Domestic 

Return Receipt, “Roger Lichter” received the Subpoena at the above address and signed 

his name to that effect. (See Exhibit E). 

j. On December 3, 2019, Erin Sweeney (“Sweeney”) from Miller & Chevalier

Chartered (“Miller”) contacted me and stated that she represented Alight to assist it in 

responding to the Subpoena. Although Alight received the Subpoena on November 12, 

2019, Sweeney informed EBSA that Alight recently retained Miller during the week of 

November 25, 2019. Sweeney stated that Alight requested a 45-day extension and to limit

Subpoena production to Subpoena requests 18-32. In consideration of Alight’s request, 

EBSA granted a 30-day extension until January 3, 2020; however, EBSA specified that it 

would not approve a limitation on the production of Subpoena requests. All documents 
5

were due on January 3, 2020. I sent a link to EBSA’s secure portal through Accellion, Inc.

to esweeney@milchev.com for Sweeney to send documents by January 3, 2020. (See

Exhibit F). 

k. After the call, Sweeney emailed me and, again, insisted on partial 

production of the Subpoena. Specifically, Sweeney proposed producing Subpoena requests 

18-32 and possible production of additional documents, pending EBSA’s review of 

Alight’s partial production. Contrary to the agreement on the production extension, 

Sweeney stated that Alight would provide documents on a rolling basis beginning on 

January 3, 2020. (See Exhibit G). 

l. On December 3, 2019, I emailed Sweeney stating, “I want to make sure I 

clarify the deadline extension. [EBSA was] able to grant a 30-day extension for all 

Subpoena production until January 3, 2020. We requested production on a rolling basis 

from the original date of December 9, 2019 up until January 3, 2020. This will include all 

items: 1-32. Please let me know if you have any other questions.” (See Exhibit H).

m. On December 4, 2019, Sweeney responded that Alight would provide 

selected Subpoena requests 18-32 and will only provide further documents pursuant to a 

proposed schedule pending review of the first production of documents. (See Exhibit I).

n. On December 4, 2019, I responded to Sweeney with the following message:

“Thank you for your email. I appreciate your request. On October 16, 2019, [EBSA]

conducted a telephone conference with Alight to discuss likely subpoena items. According 

to our United States Postal Service certified mail receipt, Alight received our November 5, 

2019 subpoena on November 12, 2019. All documents were due by December 9, 2019. 
6

However, in response to your request for an extension, [EBSA] was able to grant an

extension until January 3, 2020, when all documents are now due. Again, this will include 

all items: 1-32. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation. Please feel free to contact me 

with any questions.” (See Exhibit I). 

o. On January 3, 2020, the date when production for all Subpoena requests 1-

32 were due, I received an email with an attached 39- page letter (Letter) of objections and 

responses to the Subpoena. The email also contained a log that described documents 

uploaded to the Miller portal on behalf of Alight. On January 3, 2020, I downloaded the 

files. (See Exhibit J, K, and L). 

p. The Letter consisted of general and specific objections to the Subpoena.

(See Exhibit K). In the Letter, Alight listed general objections such as objections to 

Subpoena definitions, the time period of the Subpoena, EBSA’s legitimate investigatory 

purpose, and the statutory scope of EBSA’s authority with respect to Subpoena requests. 

Alight also made various specific objections: the Subpoena requests were overly broad and 

unduly burdensome; terms were undefined and impermissibly vague; and, that Alight did 

not have the authority to disclose confidential client information. (See Exhibit K).

q. On January 3, 2020, Sweeney produced documents to EBSA that were 

responsive to Subpoena requests 8, 16, 17, and 24-26. (See Exhibit L).

r. On January 3, 2020, Sweeney partially produced documents to EBSA that 

were responsive to Subpoena requests 2, 5, 12, 14, 20, 21, and 32. (See Exhibit L).

s. On January 3, 2020, Sweeney partially produced documents to EBSA that 

were responsive to Subpoena requests 1, 3, and 4; however, only through a portion of the 
7

time period required by the Subpoena. (See Exhibit L).

t. In the Letter, Alight requested to meet and confer with EBSA regarding the 

Subpoena. (See Exhibit K). Pursuant to this request, on January 21, 2020, EBSA arranged

a call with Sweeney to discuss Alight’s response and objections to the Subpoena. (See

Exhibit M).

u. On January 21, 2020, the following parties were present on the call for the 

Chicago Regional Solicitor’s Office for the U.S. Department of Labor (“RSOL”), EBSA, 

and Alight: 

• Bruce Canetti, Senior Trial Attorney, RSOL

• Vishney Ambalavanar, Investigator, EBSA

• Jeffrey Singer, Senior Investigator, EBSA

• Celenna Loggins, Senior Investigator, EBSA

• Erin Sweeney, Miller 

• Dawn Murphy-Johnson, Miller 

v. EBSA clarified that the call was not to rewrite or limit the elements of the 

Subpoena, but to provide requested clarity regarding the Subpoena items. During the call, 

EBSA diligently responded to Alight’s inquiries and addressed Alight’s reservations to 

Subpoena document production, as requested. Sweeney stated that she would inform EBSA 

of Alight’s position about potentially providing additional documentation or its objection 

to do so between January 22, 2020 and January 24, 2020. (See Exhibit N).

w. Sweeney did not provide EBSA with a response by January 24, 2020. On 

January 25, 2020, Sweeney sent an email stating that Alight would provide an update by 
8

the middle of the week of January 27, 2020. (See Exhibit O).

x. After no response by the middle of the week of January 27, 2020, on

January 31, 2020, I requested an update from Sweeney about Alight’s position regarding 

Subpoena document production. (See Exhibit P). 

y. Sweeney responded that she was working closely with Alight and will

have a response during the week of February 1, 2020. (See Exhibit P).

z. On February 6, 2020, I received an email from Sweeney with Alight’s

attached response. (See Exhibit Q). In the response, Alight objected again to Subpoena 

production, challenged EBSA’s authority, and demanded that EBSA describe its 

investigation (See Exhibit R).

aa. Further, Sweeney stated that Alight will produce documents if the DOL 

“provides Alight with evidence showing that the plan in question has checked the box on 

Line 4(f) of Schedule H or Schedule I of that plan's Annual Return/Report of Employee 

Benefit Plan ("Form 5500"), reflecting that the plan "ha[d] a loss, whether or not 

reimbursed by the plan's fidelity bond, that was caused by fraud or dishonesty." (See

Exhibit R). 

bb. On March 9, 2020, the Chicago Regional Solicitor’s Office for the U.S. 

Department of Labor emailed a letter to Sweeney stating that all responsive documents 

must be produced by March 13, 2020. (See Exhibit S).

cc. To date, Alight has failed to produce any further documents in response to

the Subpoena. January 3, 2020 was the last date on which Alight produced any documents 

to EBSA in response to the Subpoena. I also note that the Instructions section of the 
9

Subpoena, part 7.f., states, “In the event that there are no documents responsive to a 

particular request, please specify that you have no responsive documents.” However, as 

detailed above, there is no instance in which Alight specifically claimed it had no 

responsive documents. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on the 3rd of April, 2020. 

_________________________

Celenna Loggins

Senior Investigator 

Employee Benefits Security Administration

U.S. Department of Labor 

230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2160 

Chicago, Illinois 60604