Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv—00699-SLR-IVIPT Document 110-2 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 1 013
EXHIBIT A

, . Case 1 :05-cv-00699-SLFl-IVI PT Document 1 10-2 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 2 of 3
VEODER, Pntcz, KAUFMAN & l I I 222 NORTH LASALLE STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6060l
stz-sos-7500
umm M. utrtmtrt FAX: 3l2·6¤9·5005
Sl2—BD§»7720 _
|heltm¤nQvetIdcrprt:e.:nm gpttgagg · mw von; ctw · WASHINGTON, DC · ROSELANU, NJ
January 8, 2007
BY E-MAIL SBOWAN@,Kl.NG.COM
Scott A. Bowan °
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP
Henry W. Oliver Building
535 Smithheld Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Re: DuPont v. Kemper, No 05-699 QD. Del)
Dear Scott:
This letter is in response to DuPont’s Second Notice of Deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) .
dated December 28, 2006. Due to preexisting scheduling conflicts and the objections set forth
herein, we not be producing a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on January 10, 2007.
Objections: Delinitions
Further, Kemper objects to DuPont’s dehnition of “lnsurance l’rogram" as overbroad,
unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
insofar as it encompasses all insurance policies, insurance proposals, warranty agreements,
indemnity agreements, dividend plans and all other insurance agreements that were issued or sold to
DuPont from January l, l972 to thc present, including the endorsements, riders, binders, covcr
notes, placing slips, and other documents issued in connection therewith.
Kemper objects to the delinition of "Ke1npcr" as ovcrbroad, unduly burdensome and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as it includes:
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, American Motorists Insurance Company,
Kemper Casualty Insurance Company, Kemper Lloyds Insurance Company, Specialty Surplus
Insurance Company, and Universal Bonding Insurance Company, It was Lumbennens Mutual
Casualty Company that issued the policies at issue in this case.
Objections: Topics for lngui;v__
Kemper objects to Topic for inquiry No. 1 insofar as it presumes that Kemper created large
risk dividend plans, which have long been utilized in thc insurance industry. Further, the facts and
circumstances of Kcmpcr’s initial development of a large risk contributory dividend plan lor an
ct Il(TA(i(`)/til so 1 asrt.2

Case 1 :05-cv—00699-SLR-IVI PT Document 1 10-2 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 3 of 3
V rxr iutzir Pint; i·;
Scott A. Bowan
January 8, 2007
Page 2 V
insured other than DuPont which may be similar to the Large Risk Contributory Dividend plan used
with DuPont is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ot` admissible evidence. Further,
this request is overly broad, vague and would entail undue burden and expense for Kemper to
research historically the very Erst large risk contributory dividend plan used with an insured other
than DuPont which is similar to the DuPont program and to present a witness knowledgeable about
the same.
Kemper objects to Topic No. 2 on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further,
the rcason(s) Kemper (as broadly defined by DuPont) may have utilized a large risk contributory
dividend plan with policyholders other than DuPont over more than a 35 year period would entail
undue burden and expense for Kemper to research historically and to present appropriate witnesses
to testify eoneeming.
Kemper objects to Topic No. 3 as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and HD1
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of` admissible evidence. Given the expansive
definition of insurance Program therein, DuPont appears to seek a representative to testify regarding
the Facts, circumstances and development ofthe entire lnsurance Program more than 35 years ago
which is overly bread, unduly burdensome and plainly improper.
Kemper objects to Topic for Inquiry No. 4 as vague and ambiguous in the use of` the terms
"initial creation, drafting and meaning? Further, Kemper objects to Topic No. 4 (a), (c), (d), (l`),
and (g) are duplicativc of Topic No. 6 of DuPont’s First Notice which Kemper has produced a
witness for deposition on September 29, 2006 and the remaining categories are essentially
duplicative ofthe others. Kemper also objects to this request for testimony to the extent that these
terms are explicitly defined in the signed Insurance Proposal between the parties as well as in the
policies and endorsements. Kemper further objects on the grounds that this request is duplieative ot`
interrogatories previously propounded upon and answered by Kemper. Moreover, DuPont has
already deposed two of` the underwriters who were involved in the Program during the 2002-2003
program year and has specifically questioned these fomter Kemper employees about these terms.
Thus, this request for testimony is redundant, overbroad and unduly burdensome. `
If` you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, don.’t hesitate to call.
Regards,
/ ’
./ . {
6/,1/5/ l t
Je fe y M. Hd man
JMH/lr
cc: Randall M. Lending, Esq.
r;iut:n<.;or.»¢isomsez ·