Free Response to Cross Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

Page 1 of 27

05-1030 T (Judge Margolis)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ______________ HIGHMARK, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PENNSYLVANIA BLUE SHIELD AND SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ______________ APPENDIX A TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ______________ EILEEN J. O'CONNOR Assistant Attorney General DAVID GUSTAFSON W.C. RAPP KAREN SERVIDEA Attorneys Justice Department (Tax) Court of Federal Claims Section P.O. Box 26 Ben Franklin Post Office Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 616-3423 (202) 514-9440 (Fax)

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

Page 2 of 27

APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit 8 Description Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Second Set of Requests for Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

Page 3 of 27

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 8

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHER r LU-J

t-AGI: t::31 :3!J

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

Page 4 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
HIGHMARK, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PENNSYLVANIA BLUE SHIELD AND SUBSIDIARIES,
Pètitioner,
v.

No. 05-1030 T Judge Margolis

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND SET
OF REOUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Plaintiff Highmark, Inc., successor in interest to Peiisylvania Blue Shield and Subsidiares,

("Plaintifl' or "PBS") by and though its undersigned counsel, hereby respon.ds and objects to
Defendant the United States' ("Defendant" or "United States") Second Set of

Requests for

Admissions as follows. Plaintiffreserve$ the right to supplement its responses.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiff objects to each and ever Request for Admission to the extent that it calls

for information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrne, the
self-critical analysis privilege, or any other privilege or protection from disclosure. Plaintiff

hereby
privileged or protected

assers all such applicable privileges and exemptions. Any disclosure of

information in response to any Request for Admission is inadvertent and not intended to waive
those privileges.

A-1

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 04/35 Page 5 of 27

2. Plaintiff objects to the Requests for Admissions to the extent they seek information

wholly irrelevant to the claims asserted by Plaintiff and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Requests for Admissions to the extent that Defendant already

possesses or has equal access to the information sought.
4. Plaintiff obj~cts to the Requests for Admissions to the extent that they are overbroad

and harassing and any attempt to respond would be unduly burdensom.e, expensive and/or
oppressive.
5. Plaintiff objects to the Requests for Admissions to the extent that they are vague or

ambiguous.
6. Whenever in these responses Plaintiff employs the phrase "subject to and without
waiving its objections," Plaintiff

is responding to the paricular request for admission as it may be

narrowed by Plaintiffs general and specific objections and without waiver of any objections.
7. Plaintiffs responses herein shall not waive or prejudice any objections that Plaintiff

may later assert. These General Objections apply to and are incorporated by reference into each of

Plaintiffs specific responses and objections below, and the specific responses and objections set
forth below are not to be deemed a waiver, either in whole or in par, of any of these General
Objections.

2

A-2

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 05/35 Page 6 of 27

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OB.JECTIONS

1. More than sixty percent of

the value of

the deductions plaÍ11tiff claims for contract

terinations in the years 1987 through i 995 is attributable to. contracts for which the
plaintiff does not know the exact year ofterinatioii.

RESPONSE: Denied. Less than fifteen percent of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for

contract tenninations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which the

plaintiff does not know the exact year oftenination.

2. More than fifty percent of

the Valtie of

the dedu.ctions plaintiff claims for contract

terinations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which the

plaintiff does not know the exact year oftenination.

RESPONSE: Denied. Less than fifteen percent of

the vahie of

the deductions ptaintiffcIaims for

contract terminations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which the
plaintiff does not know the exact year of terination.

3. More than forty percent of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

terinations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attibutable to contracts for which the

plaintiff does not know the exact year of tenninatiop.

RESPONSE: Denied. Less than fifteen percent of

the value of

the deductions plaintiffclaims for

contract terminations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which the

plaintiff does not know the exact year ofteninatiOl1.

3

A-3

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

PAGE 05/35
Page 7 of 27

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

4. More than thirty percent of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

teiinations in the years 1987 though 1995 is attributable to contracts for which the
plaintiff does 110t know the exact year oftennination.

RESPONSE: Denied. Less than fifteen peJ'cent of

the value ofthe deductions plaintiff claims for

contract terminations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which the

plaintiff does not know the exact year of tennination.

5. More than twenty-five percent ofthe value of

the deductions plaintiff clais for contract

teninations in the years 1987 though 1995 is attributable to contracts for which the

plaintiff does not know the exact year oftenination.
the deductions plaintiff claims

RESPONSE: Denied. Less than fifteen percent of

the value of

for contract terinations in the years i 987 though 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which the
plaintiff does not know the exact year of tennination.

6. Plaintiff does not know the exact year of tenination for more than sixty percent of the

. contracts for which it seeks a deductionin this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff does 110t know the exact year of tenination for about eight
percent or less of the contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.

7. Plaintiff does not know the exact year oftenination for more than fifty percent of

the

contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.
RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff does not know the exact year ofterminatjon for About eight

pC!r~ent or less of the contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.
,

4

A-4

~4/ 1 ~/ ¿~~ ( 1 ~: 4~

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 07/35 Page 8 of 27

8. Plaintiff does not know the exact year oftermination for more than forty percent of

the

contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff does not know the exact year of termination for about eight
percent or .less of the contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.

9. Plaintiff does not know the exact year of

terination for more than thirty percent of

the

contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.

.RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff does not know the exact year ofterinatioii for about ei.ght
percent o.r less of

the contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.

10. Plaintiff docS not know the exact year of

terination for more than tWenty~five percent of

the contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.

;RSPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff does not know the exäct year oftermination for about eight

percent or less of the contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.
i 1. Plaintiff does not know the exact year of terination for at least one of the contracts for

which it seeks a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE; Admitted. Plaintiff does not know the exact year of tenination for about eight
pel"cent Or less of

the contracts for which it seeks a deduction in this case.

12. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 eamed premium, or the premium rate as of January 1,

1987, for a.ny of

the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium ra.te as of

January 1,1987 for all (one

hundred pereent) of

the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

5

A-5

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 08/35 Page 9 of 27

13. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 earned premium, or the premium rate as of January 1,

1987, for more than seventy.five percent of the direct pay contracts for which it claims a
deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of

Januar i, 1987 for all (one

hundred percent) of

the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.
does not laiow the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of Janua 1,

14. Plaitiff

1987, for more than fifty percent of

the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction

in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate

as of

Januar 1, 1987 for all (one

hundred percent) of

the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case_

15. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 earned premium, or the premium rate as of January i,

1987, for more than twenty-five percent of

the direct pay contracts for which it claims a

deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of Januar 1, 1987 for all (one

hundl"edpercent) of the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

16. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 eamed premium, or the premium rate as of

January 1,

1987 ~ for at least one of the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiffknows the premium rate as of

Januar 1, 1987 for all (one

hundred percent) of

the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

6

A-6

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

PAGE 0'3/35

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

Page 10 of 27

17. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 earned premiuin, or the premium rate as of Januar 1,

1987, for any of

the group remittance contracts for which jt claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of Januar 1, 1987, for all (one
the group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

hundred percent) of

18. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 earned premium, or the premium rate as of January 1,

1987, for at least seventy-five percent of

the group remittance contracts for which it claims

a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of

January 1, 1987, for all (one

hundred percent) of

the group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.
does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of Januar 1,

19. Plaintiff

1987, for at least fifty percent of

the group remittance contracts for which it claims a

deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of January 1, 1987, for all (one
the group remittance contracts for which it cla.ims a

hundred percent) of

deduction in this case.

20. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the preinium rate as of Januar 1,

1987, for at least twenty-five percent of

the group remittance contracts for which it claims a,

deduction in this case.

RESPONSE; Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of Januar 1, 1987, for all (one

hundred pereent) of the group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

7

A-7

~4/1~/L~~( 13:4~

:n :i':':4:¿tltltl

DECHERT LLP

PAGE 10/35
Page 11 of 27

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

21.. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 earned premium, or the premium rate as of January 1,

1987, for at least one of

the group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in

this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of January 1, 1987, for all (one
the group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

hundred percent) of

22. More than sixty percent of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

terminations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff

does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of January 1, 1987.

RESPONSE: Denied_ None (zero percent) of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for

contract tenninations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff does not know the 1986 eamed premium, or the premi.um rate as of Januar i, 1987.
23. More than fifty percent of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

tenina.tions in the years 1987 though 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the 1986 earned premium~ or the premium rate as of January 1, 1987.

RESPONSE: Denied. Non.e (zero percent) of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff

claims for

contract tenninations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attiibutable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of Jal1ua.ry 1, 1987.
24. More than forty-five percent of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

tenninations in the years 1987 though 1995 is attibutable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the 1986 earned premium, or the premium rate as of Januar 1, 1987.

8

A-8

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

PAGE 11 1 35

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

Page 12 of 27

RESPONSE: Denied. None (zero percent) of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff

claims for

contract tenninations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of January 1, 1987.

25. More than forty percent of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

terinations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff

does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of.T anuary 1, 1987.

RESPONSE: Denied. None (zero percent) ofthe value of the deductions plaintiff

claims for

contract tenninations in. the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premjum rate as of

Januar 1, 1987.

26. More than thirty-five percent of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

teiinations in the years 1987 though 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium

rate as of January 1, 1987.

RESPONSE: Denied. None (zero percent) of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for

contract terminations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attbutable to contracts for which

plaintiff

does not know the 1986 earned premium~ or the premium rate as of January 1, 1987.

27. More than twenty-five percent of

the value of

the deductiolls plaintiff claims for contract

terminations in the years i 987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff

does not know the 1986 eared preiiuin, or the premium rate as of.T anuar 1, 1987.

RESPONSE: Denied. None (zero percent) of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff

claims for

contract terminations in the years 1987 though 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of January 1, 1987.

9

A-9

~4/18ILtltl¡ 13:40

2159942000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 12/35 Page 13 of 27

28. At least some of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract terinations in the

years i 987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff does not know the
1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of Januar 1, 1987.

RESPONSE: Denied. None (zel"O percent) of the value of the deductions plaintiff

claims for

contract tenninations in the years 1987 though i 995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of Januar 1, 1987.

29. Plaintiff docs not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of January 1,

1987, for more than sixty percent of the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this
case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium

rate as of January 1, 1987, for all (oDe

hundred pel"cent) ofthe contracts for which it claims a deduction in this casco

30. Plaintiff

does not know the 1986 earned premiwn, or the premium rate as of

Januar 1,

1987, for more than fift percent of the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this
case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff knows the premium rate as of January 1, 1987, for all (one
hundl"ed percent) of the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.
31. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of J anuàr 1,

1987, for more than forty-five percent of

the contracts for which it claims a deduction in

this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as ofJanu.ar 1, 1987, for nil (one

10

A-10

~4/18/2007 13: 40

2159942000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 13/35 Page 14 of 27

hundred percent) of

the contra.cts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

32. Plaitiff does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of January 1,

i 987, for mOre than forty percent ofthe contracts for which it claims a deduction in this

case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiffknows the premium rate as of Januar i, 1987, for all (one,
hundred percent) ofthe contracts for which it claims a. deduction in this case.

33. Plaintiff does not know the i 986 earned premium, or the premium rate as of Januar 1,

1987, for more than thirty-five percent of the contrcts for which it daims a deduction in
this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of January 1, i 987, for all (one

hundred percent) of the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

34. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 eared premium, or the premium rate as of January 1,

1987, for more than twenty-five percent of

the contracts for which it claims a deduction in

this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of January 1, 1987, for all (one

hundred percent) of the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

35. Plaintiff does not know the 1986 earned premium, or the premium rate as of Janua 1,

1987, for at least one of

the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the premium rate as of January 1, 1987, for all (one

hundred percent) of the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

11

A-11

~4/1~1 Ltl~ ( 1:3: 4~

L1 !J':':42t10tl

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 14/35 Page 15 of 27

36. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for any of

the direct pay contracts for

which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied_ Plaintiff

knows the original effective date for more than eighty-five

percent of

the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this ca.se.

37. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than seventy-five percent of the

direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

ßESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the original effective date for more than eighty-five

percent ofthe direct pay contracts for which it cla.ims a deduction in this case.

38. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than fifty percent of the direct
pay contra.cts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiff

knows the original effective date for more than eighty-five

percent ofthe direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

39. Plaintiff does not know the original

effective date for more than twenty-five percent ofthe

direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.
RESPONSE: Denied. Plaintiffknows the original effective date for more than eighty-five

percent of the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

40. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date at least one of the direct pay contracts for
which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Admitted. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for less tban fifteen
percent of the direct pay contracts for which it claims a deduction in this caSe.

12

A-12

B4/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 15/35 Page 16 of 27

41. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for any of the corporate experence rated

contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ter "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for
approximately twenty-five percent of

the corporate experience rated contracts for which it claims

a deduction in this case, but it does know that the original effective date for all (one hund.red
percent) of

the corporate experence rated contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case

was before January 1, 1987.

42. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for at least seventy-five percent of

the

corporate experience rated contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ter ICoriginal effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waivin.g its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.

Plaintiff adinits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for
approximately twenty-five percent of

the corporate experence rated contracts for which if claims

a deduction in this ca.se, but it does know that the original effective date for all (one hnndred
percent) of

the corporate experence rated contracts for whichit claims a deduction in this case

was before Januar 1, 1987.

43. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for at least fifty percent of the corporate
experience rated contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the tenn "original effective date"

13

A-13

~4/l~/~~~1 l:3:4tl

:n !J':':4:¿tll:l1

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 15/35 Page 17 of 27

is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that it does not kiiow the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for
appi-ox:imatcly twenty-five percent of

the corporate experience rated contracts for which it claims

a deduction in this case, but it does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred
percent) of the corporate experence rated contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case

was before Januar 1, 1987.

44. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for at least twenty-five percent of

the

corporate experience rated contracts for which it claims a deduction in this CaSe.

RESPONSE; Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ten "original e:ffective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for
approximately twenty-five percent of

the corporate experence rated contracts for which it claims

, a deduotion in this case, but it does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred
percent) ofthe corporate experence rated còn1:acts for which it claims a deduction in this case

was before Januar 1, 1987.

45. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for at least one of

the corporate

experience rated contracts for which it claims a dedtiction in this casco
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that th.e ter "origina.1 effective date"

is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.

Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day,month, year) for
approximately twenty-five percent of

the corporate experence rated contracts for which it claims

a deduction in this case, but it does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred

14

A-14

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 17/35 Page 18 of 27

percent) of the corporate experence rated contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case
was before J ar)Uary 1, i 987.

46. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than seventy-five percent of

the

group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ter "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff

admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, inonth, year) for

approximately five percent of the corporate experence rated contracts for which it claims a
deduction in this case, but it does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred
percent) of

the group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case was before

Januar 1,1987.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the tenD "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections; Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, montl1, year) for

approximately five percent of the corporate experence rated contracts for which it claims a
deduction in ths case, but it does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred
percent) ofthe group remittance contracts for which it claims a dedu,ction in this case was before
January 1, 1987.

15

A-15

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 18/35 Page 19 of 27

48. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than twenty-five percent of

the
group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ter "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for
approximately five percent of

the corporate experience rated contracts for which it claims a

deduction in this case, but it does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred .
percent) of

the group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case was before

January 1, 1987.

49. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than at least one of

the group

remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the tenn ~~original effective date"

is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i. e., day, month, year) for

approximately five percent of the corporate experience rated contracts for which it claims a
deduction in this case, but it does know that the original effective date for aU (one hundred

percent) of the group remittance contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case was before
January 1, 1987.

50. More than eighty percent of

the valu,e of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

teninations in the years 1987 though 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff

does not know the original effective date.

16

A-16

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

PAGE 1'3/35

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

Page 20 of 27

RESPONSE; Plaintiff objects to this Requ,est on the ground that the ter "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waivig its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that about fifteen percent of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for

contract terminations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attbutable to contracts for which plaintiff

does not know the exact original effectve date (i.e., day, month, year), hut all (one hundred
percent) of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for contract terminations in the years 1987

through 1995 is attributable to contracts with an origial effective date before January 1, 1987.

51. More than seventy-five percent of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

teninations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff

does not know the original effective date.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ter l'original effective date"

is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that about fifteen percent of the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for

contrct tennations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year),

but an (one hundred

percent) of

the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract teniiiations in the years 1987

through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts with an origînal effective date before January 1, 1987.
52. More than seventy percent of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

terinations in the years 1987through 1995 is attibutáble to contracts for which plaintiff

does not know the original effective date.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.

17

A-17

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 20/35 Page 21 of 27

Plaintiff admits that about rdteen percent of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for

contract tenninations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, morith, year), but all (one hundred
percent) of the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract teninations in the years 1987

through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts with an original effective date before January 1, 1987.

53. More than sixty-five percent of the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract

teninations in the years 1987 though 1995 is attbutable to contracts for which plaintiff

does not know the original effective date.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the tenn "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that about fifteen percent of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for

contract tenninations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the exact original effective dáte (i.e_, day, month, year), but all (one hundred

percent) of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for COl1ttact teninations in the years 1987

through 1995 is attributable to contracts with an original effective date before January 1, 1987.

54. More than fifty percent of the value of

the deductions plaintiff claiins for contract

terminations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the original effective date.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "original effective date"
is vague and unde.fined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that about fifteen percent of the value of the dcdu,ctions plaintiff claims for

contract terinations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff

18

A-18

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 21/35 Page 22 of 27

does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year). but all (one hundred

percent) of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for contract terinations in the years 1987
through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts with an original effective date before Januar 1, 1987.

55. More than twenty-five percent oftlie value of

the deductions plaintiff chiims for contract

terminations in the years i 987 through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the original effective date.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ter "origial.effeci'ive date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that about fifteen percent of the value of

the deductions plaintiffdaims for

contract ten.inations in the years 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year), but all (one hundred
percent) of the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for contract terinations in the years 1987

though 1995 is attrbutable to contracts with an original effective date before January 1, 1987.

56. At least some of

the value of

the deductions plaintìtf claims for contract teiminations in the

year 1987 through 1995 is attributable to contracts for which plaintiff does not kn,ow the
original effective date.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that about fifteen: percent of the value of

the deductions plaintiff claims for

contract terminations in the years 1987 thOiigh 1995 is attrbutable to contracts for which plaintiff
does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, m.onth, year), but all (one hundred

19

A-19

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 22/35 Page 23 of 27

percent) of the value of the deductions plaintiff claims for contract terinations in the years 1987

through 1995 is attrbutable to contracts with an original effective date before January 1, 1987.

57. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for m.ore than eighty percent of the

contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RES.PONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ter "original effective datel'
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff

admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for
the

approximately eight pel'cent of

contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case, but it

does know that the origínaI effective date for all (one hundred percent) of the contracts for which
it claims a deduction in this case was before January 1, 1987.

58. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than seventy-five percent of

the

contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the tenn '(original effective date"
is vague and undefi.ned. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows_

Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i. e., day, month, year) for
approximately eight percent ofthe contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case, but it
does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred percent) of

the contracts for which

it claims a deduction in this case was before Januar 1, 1987.

59. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than seventy percent of the

contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case_

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the ten "original effective date"

20

A-20

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 23/35 Page 24 of 27

is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff

admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for
the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case, but it
the contracts for which

approximately eight percent of

does know that the original effective date for all (one hundl"ed pel"cent) of

it claims a deduction in this case was before

January 1,1987.
the

60. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than sixty-five percent of

contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request 011 the ground that the term "original effective date"

is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for

approximately eight percent of the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case, but it
does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred percent) of the contracts for which
it claims a deduction in this case was before Januar 1, 1987.

61. Plaintiff does not know the

original effective date for more than fifty percent of the

contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects to ths Request on the ground that the term "origina.l effective date"

is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaintiff admits that it does not know the exactoriginal effective date (i.e.,

day, month, year) for

approximately eight percent of the contracts for which it claims a. deduction Ìl1 this case, but it
does know that the original effective da.te for all (one hundred percent) of

the contracts for which

it claims a deduction in this case was before Januar 1, 1987.

21

A-21

tl'lil tli Ltltll l.::: 'ltl

Ll !J'j'jqLtltltl

lJl:CHI:RT LLP

PAGE 24/35
Page 25 of 27

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

62. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date for more than twenty-five percent of

the

contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that thetenn "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaíntiffadmits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year) for
approximately eight percent of

the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case, but it
the contracts for which

does know that the original effective date for all (one hundred percent) of

it claims a deduction in this case was before January 1, 1987.

63. Plaintiff does not know the original effective date fot at least one ofthe contracts for which

it claims a deduction in this case.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the tem "original effective date"
is vague and undefined. Subject to and without waiving its objections" Plaintiff answers as follows.
Plaitiff admits that it does not know the exact original effective date (i.e., day, month, year)

for

approxima.tely eight .percent of

the contracts for which it claims a deduction in this case, but it
the COl'itracts for which

does know that the original effective date for aU (one hundred percent) of

it claims a deduction in this case was before January 1, 1987.

22

A-22

04/18/2007 13: 40

215'3'342000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 25/35 Page 26 of 27

Respectfully submitted,

Decher LLP Cira Centre 2929 Arch Street Phíladelphia, PAl 9104 Phone (215) 994-2624 Fax (215) 655-2624 . Counsel for Plaintiff

-r

Arhur Newbold

Date: April 18,2007
Of Counsel:
Frederick J. Gerhar
James J. Spadaro, Jr.

David N. Sontag Decher LLP Cira Centre 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, P A 19104

23

A-23

04/18/2007 13: 40

2159942000

DECHERT LLP

Case 1:05-cv-01030-LSM

Document 42-2

Filed 05/03/2007

PAGE 25/35 Page 27 of 27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

J hereby certify that I have this 18th day of April, 2007, caused a copy of the foregoing
Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Second Set of

Requests for Admission to be served by U.S.

Mail and facsimile upon the following:

Karen E. Servidea, Esquire

Uníted States Deparent of Justice
Tax Division Court of Federa.l Claims
Section P.O. .Box 26

Ben Franlin Station
Washington, DC 20044

(202) 514-9440 (fa~ J

David N. Sontag

A-24