Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1of14 Page ID #:3652 EXHIBIT E ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 2of14 Page ID #:3653 1 || JONATHAN A. SHAPIRO (257199 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2 ||950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 3 || Tel: to) 858-6101 Fax: (650) 858-6100 4 || jonathan.shapiro@wilmerhale.com ANDREA J. ROBINSON (ar HAC VICE) TIMOTHY J. PERLA (PRO HAC VI WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Fax: Attorneys for Defendant Life Insurance 11 || Company of the Southwest UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE '5 || HOWLETT, and MURIEL SPOONER, on 16 || behalf of themselves and all others CASE NO.: CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) 17 || Similarly situated, LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF _ THE SOUTHWEST’S RESPONSES a Plaintiffs, TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF v. DOCUMENTS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE | judge: HonctamesWSeiaa SOUTHWEST, a Texas corporation, Defendant. Courtroom: 10C 28 LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) DO ee oO CO “ ND A SR Ww ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page3of14 Page ID #:3654 Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest (“LSW’”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds and objects to Plaintiffs’ Third 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. ? 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. 2. 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, LS W defines the “Relevant Period” to be September 24, 2006 through September 24, 2010, and will not produce documents created outside of that period. ae 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 -2- LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) (ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 4of14 Page ID #:3655 not be construed or deemed to constitute a waiver, either 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. D: 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. ds 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. 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: (i) the Relevant period, ee LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-FVS (RNBx) — oOo Oo IN DWN A PP WHS LY (Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page5of14 Page ID #:3656 (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 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 oe LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) (ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page6of14 Page ID #:3657 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 documents or information that are omitted from these responses as a result of good faith oversight, error, or mistake. os LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-FVS (RNBx) (ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 7of14 Page ID #:3658 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: Request for Production No. 62 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the date, amount, and reason for all changes in the accumulated value of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES. Ae LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) oO Co ~s BD FH B&B WD HN — © ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 8of14 Page ID #:3659 Response to Request No. 62 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LSW further objects to this Request as vague insofar as the terms “reason” and “changes” are undefined. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for documents already in the plaintiffs’ custody, possession, or control, including but not limited to their Policies. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LSW will produce the documents it agreed to produce in response to Request Number 4, Request for Production No. 63 Software that YOU used to determine or calculate changes in the accumulated value of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES or IUL policies. Response to Request No. 63 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and 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 “determine” and “changes” are undefined. LSW further objects that this Request seeks production of LSW’s highly confidential trade secrets. Request for Production No. 64 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show how YOU calculated changes in the accumulated value of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES. oo LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) — Oo SF NI DN AW BP WY NY (ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page9of14 Page ID #:3660 Response to Request No. 64 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LSW further objects to this Request as vague insofar as the phrase “calculated changes” is vague and ambiguous. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for documents already in the plaintiffs’ custody, possession or control, including but not limited to their Policies. Request for Production No. 65 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the date, amount, and reason for all deductions from the accumulated value or account of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES, including but not limited to deductions for cost of insurance, premium expense charges, monthly expense charges, policy fees, administrative charges or fees, monthly percent of accumulated value charges, and surrender charges. Response to Request No. 65 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LSW further objects to this Request as vague insofar as the terms “reason,” “deduction,” and “account” are undefined. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for documents already in the plaintiffs’ custody, possession or control, including but not limited to their Policies. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative of Request No. 62. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LSW will produce responsive, non-privileged documents it agreed to produce in response to Request Number 62. -8- LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) —y A DH WN BB W WN (fase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 10o0f14 Page ID #:3661 Request for Production No. 66 Software that YOU used to determine or calculate deductions from the accumulated value or account of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES or IUL policies, including but not limited to deductions for cost of insurance, premium expense charges, monthly expense charges, policy fees, administrative charges or fees, monthly percent of accumulated value charges, and surrender charges. Response to Request No. 66 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and 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 that this Request seeks production of LSW’s highly confidential trade secrets. Request for Production No. 67 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show how YOU calculated deductions taken from the accumulated value or account of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES, including but not limited to deductions for cost of insurance, premium expense charges, monthly expense charges, policy fees, administrative charges or fees, monthly percent of accumulated value charges, and surrender charges. Response to Request No. 67 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for documents already in the plaintiffs’ custody, possession, or uO LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) oO CO NY WB WTA SB Qase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 11o0f14 Page ID #:3662 control, including but not limited to their Policies. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative of Request Nos. 62 and 66. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LSW will produce responsive, non-privileged documents it agreed to produce in response to Request Numbers 62 and 66. Request for Production No. 68 . DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the date, amount, and reason for all interest or other benefits credited to the accumulated value or account of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES. Response to Request No. 68 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated |to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LSW further objects to this Request insofar as the phrases “reason for all interest” and “other benefits” are vague and ambiguous. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for documents already in the plaintiffs’ custody, possession, or control, including but not limited to their Policies. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it is duplicative of Request No. 62. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LSW will produce responsive, non-privileged documents it agreed to produce in response to Request Number 62. Request for Production No. 69 Software that YOU used to determine or calculate interest or other benefits credited to the accumulated value or account of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES or IUL policies. te LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) (ase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 120f14 Page ID #:3663 Response to Request No. 69 LSW objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and 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 that this Request seeks production of LSW’s highly confidential trade secrets. Request for Production No. 70 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show how YOU calculated interest or other benefits credited to the accumulated value or account of PLAINTIFFS’ POLICIES. Response to Request No. 70 LSW objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and calls for documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LSW further objects to this Request as vague insofar as the phrase “other benefits” is undefined. LSW further objects to this Request on the ground that it calls for documents already in the plaintiffs’ custody, possession, or control, including but not limited to their Policies. LSW further objects to this request on the ground that it is duplicative of Request Nos. 62 and 63. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LSW will produce responsive, non-privileged documents it agreed to produce in response to Request Numbers 62 and 63. -1ll- LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) Oo CO SN DBD WN BP WH LH ad rt Giase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 130f14 Page ID #:3664 DATED: June 22, 2011 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP By: Andrea J. Robinson Timothy J. Perla Attorneys For Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest = 13s LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx) Giase 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 114-5 Filed 10/24/11 Page 140f14 Page ID #:3665 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of June, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was sent via the means set forth below, to the following persons: Charles N. Freiberg Oy email and first-class a 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 cfreiberg@kasowitz.com 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 Timothy J. Per] =[3< LSW’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 10-9198-JVS (RNBx)