because it is one of the “other instruments under which the plan is established or operated.” 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) (1985). 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>). It is an unwarranted expansion of the meaning
holding that plan administrator that was also insurer operated under conflict of interest holding that for purposes of the aggravated assault statute if the instrument used is a firearm as defined by section 7900016 then that instrument is a deadly weapon as a matter of law  regardless of whether it is loaded or capable of being fired and holding that for purposes of the aggravated assault statute if the instrument is not a firearm then courts are to apply an objective test and look to the nature and actual use of the instrument and not to the subjective fear of the victim or intent of the perpetrator in determining whether the instrument is a deadly weapon holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that a manual containing charts essential to the calculation of benefits is an instrument under which the plan was established or operated holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary