Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1of15 Page ID #:3637

EXHIBIT D

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page2of15 Page| #:3638

JONATHAN A. SHAPIRO (257199 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road

Tel: ($30) 858-6101 858-6100 jonathan.shapiro@wilmerhale.com

ANDREA J. ROBINSON (PRO HAC VICE)

TIMOTHY J. PERLA (PRO HAC VICE

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

Tel: a 526-6000

Fax: (617) 526-5000

andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com

Attorneys for Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, and MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)

V. Formerly Case No.: 3:10-cv -04852 JSW from Northern District of California

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a Texas THE SOUTHWEST’S RESPONSES corporation, TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendant. | Judge: Hon. James V. Selna Courtroom: 10C

LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page3of15 Page| #:3639

Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest (““LSW”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds and objects to Plaintiffs’ Second

Request For Production of Documents (“Requests for Production”).

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Each of LSW’s responses is subject to and incorporates the following general objections. The assertion of the same, similar, or additional objections, or a partial response to any individual Document Request does not waive any of LSW’s general objections.

ie LSW objects to each and every Request for Production to the extent that they call for documents that are neither relevant to the claims and defenses in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Z. LSW objects to the time period specified in the Requests for Production, which is overbroad, calls for documents which would be unduly burdensome to collect, and calls for documents which are not relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning that claim (including but not limited to insofar as it calls for documents generated outside of the relevant statutes of limitations). Unless otherwise expressly stated, LSW defines the “Relevant Period” to be September 24, 2006 through September 24, 2010, and will not produce documents created outside of that period.

3. LSW objects to each and every Request for Production, to the extent it seeks documents and information that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, or any other privilege or protection. Any inadvertent disclosure of such information is not

intended and should not be construed or deemed to constitute a waiver, either

so. LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page4of15 Page| #:3640

generally or specifically, in whole or in part, with respect to such material or the subject matter thereof.

4. LSW objects to each and every Request for Production to the extent that it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under, and/or seeks to impose obligations upon LSW that are different from or in addition to those imposed by, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

2. LSW objects to each and every Request for Production to the extent that it purports to impose a burden on LSW to provide information that is publicly available and/or already in the plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control, and is therefore equally available to the plaintiffs.

6. LSW objects to each and every Request for Production to the extent that the discovery sought is duplicative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, ambiguous, vague or requires unreasonable investigation by LSW.

de LSW objects to each and every Request for Production to the extent that it purports to impose a burden on LSW of ascertaining information and collecting documents that are not within LSW’s possession, custody or control. LSW will provide only information or documents that are within its possession, custody, or control.

8. LSW objects to each and every Request for Production to the extent that it seeks the production of documents or the disclosure of information that constitutes or contains confidential information. LSW will produce only such documents, or disclose such information, subject to a mutually acceptable

confidentiality agreement.

ae a LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page5of15 Page| #:3641

9. LSW objects on grounds of relevance, overbreadth, and undue burden to each and every Request for Production to the extent that it seeks the production of documents or the disclosure of information and is not limited to: (1) the Relevant period, (ii) California, and/or (ii) SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies sold or marketed by LSW in California. Unless otherwise expressly stated, any production to which LSW agrees shall be limited to SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies sold or marketed by LSW in California during the Relevant Period.

10. LSW objects to each and every Request for Production to the extent that it purports to impose a duty on LSW to seek information or documents through something other than a reasonable search of their files where potentially responsive materials or information reasonably would be expected to be found. LSW’s representation that it will produce responsive documents means that it will make a diligent, good faith effort to locate responsive documents and that it will produce any non-privileged, responsive documents that are found. It does not mean that any such documents exist, or that any existing documents can be collected through reasonable efforts.

11. LSW objects to the definitions of YOU, YOUR and LSW in the Requests on the grounds that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and include individuals, entities and other organizations that are not relevant to any claim or any defenses thereto. LSW will interpret those terms to mean Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, its employees, and its parent corporation, National Life Insurance Company.

12. LSW objects to the definition of IUL on the grounds that it is overly

broad and unduly burdensome. LSW will interpret the term to mean SecurePlus

eae LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

oO Oo NY Dn A BP WO NH

“bo bo NO ho bdo ie) No No N ay es — — — — _ foot — — (oe) ~] lon — & tad N —_ oO \o oO ~ on Nn bb Lee) N — Oo

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page6of15 Page| #:3642

Provider and SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies sold by LSW in California during the Relevant Period set forth above.

13. LSW objects to the definition of DISCLOSURE on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and on the grounds that the phrase “refers or relates to the terms or features of IUL” is unexplained and undefined, rendering the term vague and ambiguous.

14. LSW objects to the definition of IDENTITY to the extent that it seeks confidential and personal information about LSW employees and third parties, and is overbroad and unduly burdensome. LSW will produce responsive documents containing such information only to the extent permitted by law, and in that case only subject to an acceptable confidentiality order and with suitable redactions.

15. None of LSW’s responses herein shall constitute a waiver of any and all defenses, protections or rights accorded to it. In addition, none of these responses, including but not limited to any statement that certain information will be provided or a document will be produced, is an admission relative to the existence of any such information or documents, to the relevance or admissibility of any information or documents, or to the truth or accuracy of any statement or characterization contained in the Request for Production. LSW retains the right to object, on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevance, materiality, or otherwise, to the use of the information or documents that it produces, in whole or in part, in this or in any other action.

16. LSW objects to any Request that purports to require it to produce multiple, identical copies of the same document. Unless otherwise indicated, LSW will only produce non-identical copies of any documents it agrees to produce.

17. All of these responses are without prejudice to LSW’s using or relying

on at trial subsequently discovered documents or information, including any such

-5- LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-IVS (RNBx)

o CO SN WD ON A

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 7of15 Page| #:3643

documents or information that are omitted from these responses as a result of good faith oversight, error, or mistake. |

18. The responses herein are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject to all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, and any and all other objections on any grounds which would require the exclusion from evidence of any statement herein if any production of document were asked for, or any statements contained herein were

made by, a witness present and testifying in court, all of which objections and

| grounds are expressly reserved and may be interposed at trial.

19. LSW’s investigation is ongoing. These responses therefore are made on the basis of LSW’s investigation to date and upon information currently available to and located by it after reasonable inquiry. LSW reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify its responses, as further information becomes available and known and such information is analyzed.

20. Subject to its objections, LSW agrees to produce non-privileged responsive documents as expressly identified below, if any, in accordance with a schedule to be determined by the Court and/or agreement of the parties. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, LSW will not produce any documents encompassed

by the foregoing objections.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections, LSW

responds to each Request as follows:

~6- LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 8of15 Page| #:3644

Request for Production No. 49 All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to Douglas R. Andrew or Paramount

Financial Services, Inc. Response to Request No. 49

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to insofar as Douglas R. Andrew and Paramount Financial Services have never been appointed by LSW to sell the SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LS W in California. Request for Production No. 50

All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, or referring to communications between YOU and Douglas R, Andrew or Paramount Financial Services, Inc. Response to Request No. 50

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to insofar as Douglas R. Andrew and Paramount Financial Services have never been appointed by LSW to sell the SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative of Request No. 49. Request for Production No. 51

All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to Patrick Kelly or Tax Free

Retirement, Inc.

ae LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

oO CO NN DD

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page9of15 Page| #:3645

Response to Request No, 51 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and

calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to insofar as Patrick Kelly and Tax Free Retirement, Inc. have never been appointed by LSW to sell the SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California. Request for Production No. 52

All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, or referring to communications between YOU and Patrick Kelly or Tax Free Retirement, Inc. Response to Request No. 52

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to insofar as Patrick Kelly and Tax Free Retirement, Inc. have never been appointed by LSW to sell the SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative of Request No. 51. Request for Production No. 53

All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to Nelson Nash or Infinite Banking Concepts, LLC. Response to Request No. 53

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to insofar as Nelson

Nash and Infinite Banking Concepts, LLC have never been appointed by LSW to

-8- LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

o OA SN DN NH BS

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 10o0f15 Page ID #:3646

sell the SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California. Request for Production No. 54

All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, or referring to communications between YOU and Nelson Nash or Infinite Banking Concepts, LLC.

Response to Request No. 54 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and

|calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to insofar as Nelson Nash and Infinite Banking Concepts, LLC have never been appointed by LSW to sell the SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative of Request No. 53. Request for Production No. 55

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show premiums paid on the SecurePlus Provider policy and the SecurePlus Paragon policy per month since the beginning of the class period. Response to Request No. 55

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LSW will include in the data that it will produce in its Response to Request Numbers 26 through 30 and 37 through 39, subject to all limitations

identified therein, a column indicating the gross premium paid.

-9- LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

oO Co NY Dn WH FP Ww YO =

Nm db NO NO NO NO NO NO HN BR EE FEO SEE OO RES OOO eS ee elle ao NWN MH FF WY NY FY Oo Oo FON DH AHN Se Ww NY KS O&O

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page11of15 Page {D #:3647

Request for Production No. 56 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show surrender charges paid on the SecurePlus

Provider policy and the SecurePlus Paragon policy per month since the beginning of the class period. Response to Request No. 56

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LSW will include in the data that it will produce in its Response to Request Numbers 26 through 30 and 37 through 39, subject to all limitations identified therein, a column indicating the surrender charges paid.

Request for Production No. 57

| All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to fees or costs charged for indexed universal life insurance policies sold or marketed by insurance companies other than LSW.

Response to Request No. 57

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that it calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including insofar as the Request is not limited to the SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California during the Relevant Period. LSW further objects to this Request as vague insofar as the terms “fees,” “costs,” and “marketed” are undefined. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for the production of documents in the possession, custody, or

control of third parties.

- 10 LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

0 Oo NDA WwW B&B WwW NY &

pond unm —_ ©

ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 12o0f15 Page |D #:3648

Request for Production No. 58 All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to illustrations for indexed universal

life insurance policies sold or marketed by insurance companies other than LSW. Response to Request No. 58

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that it calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including insofar as the Request is not limited to the SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California during the Relevant Period. LSW further objects to this Request as vague insofar as the term “marketed” is undefined. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for the production of documents in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. Request for Production No. 59

All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to disclosures made to prospective policyholders of indexed universal life insurance policies sold or marketed by insurance companies other than LSW. Response to Request No. 59

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that it calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including insofar as the Request is not limited to the SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California during the Relevant Period. LSW further objects to this Request as vague insofar as the terms

39 66

“disclosures,” “prospective policyholders,” and “marketed” are undefined. LSW

ais LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

—

& Ww bh

oO CO SN HD WN

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

se 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1i3o0f15 Page| #:3649

further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for the production of documents in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. Request for Production No. 60

All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to disclosures made to policyholders of variable life insurance policies sold or marketed by LSW. Response to Request No. 60

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that it calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including insofar as the Request is not limited to the SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California during the Relevant Period. LSW further objects.to this Request as vague insofar as the terms “disclosures” and “marketed” are undefined. Request for Production No. 61

All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to disclosures made to policyholders of variable life insurance policies sold or marketed by insurance companies other than LSW. Response to Request No. 61

LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that it calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including insofar as the Request is not limited to the SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policies issued by LSW in California during the Relevant Period. LSW further objects to this Request as vague insofar as the terms

“disclosures” and “marketed” are undefined. LSW further objects to this Request

se LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

oO CO SIF HD Wn Ff

se 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 140f15 Page ID #:3650

on the ground that it calls for the production of documents in the possession,

custody, or control of third parties.

DATED: June 20, 2011 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP

By: onathan A. Andrea J. Rob Timothy J.

on erla

Attorneys For Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest

ce LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)

se 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1i5o0f15 Page| #:3651

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20th day of June, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was sent via the means set forth below, to the following persons:

Charles N. Freiberg (by email and first-class siheiy Brian P. Brosnahan (by email and first-class mai Jacob N. Foster (by email and first-class mai KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FREIDMAN LL

101 California Street, Suite 2300

San Francisco, CA 94111

a he Ae aera bbrosnahan@kasowitz.com jfoster@kasowitz.com

Harvey R. Levine (by first-class mail) Craig A. Miller (by first-class mail) Levine & Miller

550 West C Street, Suite 1810

San Diego, CA 92101

imothy J. Per

-14-

LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)