Court Opinion

ID: 9487508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:18:25.323147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:18.790422
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In Acosta v. Pacific Enterprises, 950 F.2d 611 (9th Cir.1991), as amended on reh’g (9th Cir.1992), the plaintiff, a participant in a Pacific Enterprises’ pension plan, requested that the plan trustee provide him with a list of the names, addresses, and voting shares of Pacific Enterprises’ stock held by each plan participant so that he could solicit votes in a board of directors election. We rejected Acosta’s claim that ERISA required a fiduciary to disclose the list because such information was not “sufficiently related to the provision of benefits or the defrayment of expenses.”1 Id. at 619. We held that “common law trust duties regarding the disclosure of information to beneficiaries may be read into ERISA ... only to the extent that they relate to the provision of benefits or the defrayment of expenses.”2 Id. at 618. Under Acosta, therefore, ERISA does not mandate disclosure unless there is a sufficient nexus between the information requested and the provision of benefits or the defrayment of expenses.
I agree with the well-reasoned decision of the district court in this case. Following Acosta, the district court held that the Administrator is under no obligation to disclose the names and addresses of all 60,000 plan participants in the Hughes pension plan because such a list provides no information or access to information about the provision of benefits or the defrayment of expenses under the plan. Indeed, plaintiffs do not request the list to gain this kind of information. Rather, they wish to gain access to other participants to help them “police” the admin*1010istration of the plan and to rally support for efforts to obtain an increase in benefits.
In what I believe is a misreading of Acosta, the majority reverses the district court, holding that ERISA requires the Hughes administrator to disclose the names and addresses of the participants because plaintiffs’ asserted purpose for the request concerns the provision of benefits. In doing so, the majority, citing no authority, shifts from the objective standard of Acosta (the nature of the document requested) to a subjective standard (the alleged intent of the requestors). In the context of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the Supreme Court has held that the question of disclosure “cannot turn on the purposes for which the request for information is made.” United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 771, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 1480, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989). Instead, disclosure “must turn on the nature of the requested document” because disclosure of personal information constitutes an “invasion of privacy.” Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 772, 771, 109 S.Ct. at 1481, 1480.
The majority ignores the privacy interests at stake in ordering Hughes to disclose the participants’ names and addresses. If disclosed to one group of participants, presumably the list must be disclosed to any other group of participants asserting that they too want to garner support for increased benefits. And once any group of participants has the list, there is no assurance that it will not fall into the hands of others who will exploit it for their own commercial purposes. In this case, the list will include over 60,000 Hughes employees’ names and addresses, making it a list of considerable commercial value. In other words, there is no reason to believe there is not a “substantial probability that the disclosure will lead to the use of the list by marketers and a concomitant invasion of the workers’ right to be let alone.” Painting Industry of Hawaii Market Recovery Fund v. United States Air Force, 26 F.3d 1479, 1483 (9th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). See also id. at 1486 (Norris, J., concurring) (“The invasion of privacy that results from disclosure of one’s home address is far more substantial than, say, the disclosure of one’s phone number [because] home addresses are not routinely available.”); United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, — U.S. -, - 114 S.Ct. 1006, 1015-16, 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994) (“when we consider that other parties, such as commercial advertisers and solicitors, must have the same access ... to the employee address lists sought in this case, [ ] it is clear that the individual privacy interest that would be protected by nondisclosure is far from insignificant.”) (citations omitted).
In addition to ignoring the privacy interests of the participants, the majority ignores the administrative costs of disclosing lists to any group of participants who ask for them for the asserted purpose of trying to rally support for increased benefits. Administrative costs, of course, are paid out of plan assets.
The majority holds, in the alternative, that ERISA mandates the disclosure of the list of names and addresses because it is one of the “other instruments under which the plan is established or operated.” 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) (1985).3 As the district court held, ERISA implicitly limits “other instruments” to those documents that are similar to the documents specifically listed in that section. For example, upon request, an administrator must provide a participant with a copy of the plan description, the latest annual report, any terminal report, the bargaining agreement, or trust agreement. See 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). These documents all provide participants with direct information about the plan and its benefits. The requested mailing list, in contrast, provides no information about the plan or its benefits. Cf. Lee v. Dayton Power and Light Co., 604 F.Supp. 987, 1002 (S.D.Ohio 1985) (holding that a manual containing charts essential to *1011the calculation of benefits is an instrument under which the plan was established or operated). It is an unwarranted expansion of the meaning of “other instruments” to interpret it to include the names and addresses of plan participants.
I respectfully dissent.

. We made clear that the term "benefit” refers only "to a participant’s or beneficiary's right to receive monies from the plan administrator or trustee.” 950 F.2d at 619. (footnote omitted).

. Even if, as the majority asserts, plaintiffs’ request would be granted under the common law of trusts, Acosta limits the applicability of that law by requiring a nexus between the information and benefits.

. This section of ERISA provides: "The administrator shall, upon written request of any participant or beneficiary, furnish a copy of the latest updated summary plan description, plan description, and the latest annual report, any terminal report, the bargaining agreement, trust agreement, contract, or other instruments under which the plan is established or operated.” 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4).