Opinion ID: 8407616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Penalty for Delay in Production

Text: ERISA § 502(c)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1), authorizes the imposition of statutory penalties upon the PTF for its failure to produce certain documents that McDonald requested pursuant to ERISA § 104(b)(4), U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). On appeal, McDonald challenges the district court’s calculation of the length of • the PTF’s delay in providing him with an updated summary plan description (“SPD”). We review this calculation for abuse of discretion. See ERISA § 502(c)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). Upon request, a plan administrator must “furnish a copy of the latest updated summary plan description” and “other instruments under which the plan is established or operated.” ERISA § 104(b)(4), 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). McDonald’s counsel first requested the Plan’s “current” SPD in a September 21, 1998 letter. The PTF promptly dehvered a copy of the 1992 SPD, the most recent one available at the time. In an October 21, 1998 letter, McDonald’s counsel asked for an updated SPD, and the PTF had 30 days in which to deliver it. ERISA § 502(c)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). Despite the October 21, 1998 request, the PTF did not sent McDonald or his counsel an updated SPD by November 21, 1998. In January 1999, the PTF mailed an updated SPD to McDonald and the other plan participants. The district court properly found—and the PTF concedes—that it failed, to produce timely an SPD that reflected amendments made within the preceding five years and thus violated ERISA § 104(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). McDonald II, 2001 WL 1154630, at , 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15534, at . The district court further determined that the delay lasted 71 days, from November 21, 1998, until January 31, 1999, the last day of the month in which the PTF mailed an updated copy to plan participants. The district court fixed a penalty of $15 per day and awarded McDonald $1,065 for this delay. On appeal, McDonald maintains that the length of the delay was 417 days and that the district court should have calculated the penalty accordingly. We disagree. The imposition of penalties for violating ERISA § 104(b)(4) is left to the discretion of the district court. See Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 76, 90 (2d Cir.2001) (stating that “the ultimate assessment of penalties is a discretionary matter for the district court”). Awards of penalties and their amounts depend on the following: (1) the administrator’s bad faith or intentional conduct; (2) The length of .the delay; (3) the number of requests made; (4) the extent and importance of the documents withheld; and (5) the existence of any prejudice to the participant or beneficiary. Austin v. Ford, No. 95 Civ. 3730, 1998 WL 88744, at  (S.D.N.Y. Mar.2, 1998); see also Devlin, 274 F.3d at 90. Although McDonald did’ not receive the SPD until October 1999, the district court found that a portion of the delay occurred because McDonald had supplied an incorrect mailing' address and the data processor that the PTF had hired failed to correct the address despite the PTF’s instructions to do so. Given these facts and the absence of aggravating factors such as bad faith, prejudice, or multiple requests for the information, we conclude that the district court’s calculation of' the appropriate penalty fell easily within its discretion. See, e.g., Demery v. Extebank Deferred Compensation Plan (B), 216 F.3d 283, 290 (2d Cir.2000).