Walsh v. Alight Solutions LCC

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting petitioner-Dept. of Labor’s petition for enforcement of its subpoenas seeking documents relevant to its investigation of alleged cybersecurity breaches at respondent-company, which provided administrative services for employers who sponsor healthcare and retirement plans. Ct. of Appeals rejected company’s argument that Dept. lacked authority under ERISA to investigate company or cybersecurity incidents generally. Moreover, company failed to argue that subject-matters contained in subpoenas were unclear, and Dist. Ct. found that subject-matters of subpoenas were reasonably relevant to investigation of company’s compliance with ERISA. Also, for purpose of company’s complaints that subpoenas were too burdensome, company failed to provide estimates of numbers of documents at issue in subpoenas, cost of providing said documents, hours required to produce said documents, or how compliance would threaten normal operations of company’s business. Too, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying company’s request for protective order, where company failed to show how disclosure to Dept. would result in information being disclosed to third-party.