[PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)

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, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a Texas corporation, Defendant.

CASE NO.: CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION AND VACATING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION AND

VACATING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

Having considered the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Vacate the Hearing on

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, set for Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., and

good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS that the January 15, 2013

hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is vacated in light of the parties’

resolution of the remaining issues identified in this Court’s December 14, 2012

Minute Order (Dkt. 365).

With respect to the remaining discovery issues identified in the Minute

Order, and in accordance with the parties’ Joint Stipulation, the Court ORDERS

the following:

(1) LSW’s response to Document Request No. 125: LSW will elect, by

the close of business on January 15, 2013, one of the following document search

efforts. LSW will either:

(a) conduct an electronic search of data collected from its custodians for

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 384 Filed 01/14/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:17247

[PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)

documents containing either (i) the phrase “lapse check,” or (ii) the phrases

“‘regression’ and ‘lapse’” within a single document. LSW would then produce all

non-privileged documents identified by (i.e., that are “hits” in) such a search; or,

(b) ask its custodians whether they either (i) have in their possession,

custody, or control, or (ii) have previously seen documents discussing analyses of

Paragon or Provider illustrations with respect to lapse, including but not limited to

documents that substantively discuss “lapse checks” or regression analysis in

regards to lapse (as discussed in LSW-E00067995). LSW’s custodians will be

provided with a copy of LSW-E00067995 for purposes of clarity. If any of LSW’s

custodians have such documents in their possession, custody, or control, LSW will

produce non-privileged documents to Plaintiffs. If LSW’s custodians have

previously seen such documents, but no longer have them in their possession,

custody, or control, LSW’s custodians will be asked to identify the person[s] from

whom they would request such documents if they needed the documents for a

business purpose. Any persons identified not already on the custodian list will

then be sent the same inquiry discussed above. LSW will produce responsive non-

privileged documents identified by these inquiries.

(2) LSW’s production of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify on Deposition

Topic Nos. 1-5: LSW has agreed to designate Elizabeth MacGowan as a Rule

30(b)(6) witness to testify on Deposition Topic Nos. 1-5. LSW will make Ms.

MacGowan available for up to 1.5 hours of testimony as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

If LSW tenders Ms. MacGowan as a percipient witness on the same day as her

testimony on Deposition Topic Nos. 1-5, then she will not be deposed for more

than 8 hours total on that date as a percipient witness and Rule 30(b)(6) witness for

Deposition Topic Nos. 1-5. LSW may also elect to have Ms. McGowan finish this

combined total of 8 hours of testimony on a second consecutive day, as opposed to

8 hours on one single day. Ms. MacGowan’s testimony as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 384 Filed 01/14/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:17248

[PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)

on Deposition Topic Nos. 1-5 will not count against the 3 days of Rule 30(b)(6)

depositions provided for pursuant to the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt.

117).

(3) LSW’s production of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify on Deposition

Topic Nos. 33: LSW will answer the interrogatory concerning cost of insurance

charges that was proposed by Plaintiffs. See Joint Stipulation (Dkt. 359) at 36-37

(“Please describe the setting of your cost of insurance charges for PROVIDER and

PARAGON. Your answer will be considered complete if it describes who was

involved in the setting of your cost of insurance charges for PROVIDER and

PARAGON, what factors and what data were considered, why you chose the cost

of insurance charges that you chose, what analysis you did of your expected

mortality experience for each such product, and the amount(s) by which such

charges exceed your expected mortality experience.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2013

Honorable Robert N. Block United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 384 Filed 01/14/13 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:17249