Defendant Michael W. Fisher hereby responds to Plaintiff Sue Kruse’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1.            Defendant makes the following general objections (“General Objections”) to each and every individual Form Interrogatory and hereby incorporates such objections into each and every individual response herein.  The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections or the provision of partial answers in the individual responses to these requests does not waive any of Defendant’s General Objections.

2.            Defendant objects to the definition of “INCIDENT” used in the Form Interrogatories in that it includes everything in the 34-page Second Amended Complaint and 16-page Cross-Complaint.  This is vague, ambiguous and overbroad to the point of harassment, and does not with any reasonably particularity describe the information sought by the propounding party.

3.            Defendant objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they request information which is neither relevant to this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4.            Defendant objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they request information protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

5.            Defendant objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they impose an obligation to provide a response for or on behalf of any person or entity other than Defendant and/or request information other than that in the possession, custody or control of Defendant.

6.            Defendant objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information equally or more readily available to Plaintiff.

7.             The following responses are based upon the facts, documents and information presently known and available to Defendant.  Discovery, investigation, research and analysis are ongoing and may disclose the existence of additional facts or documents, add meaning to known facts or documents, or lead to additions, variations, or changes to these responses.

8.            Without obligating itself to do so, Defendant reserves the right to change or supplement these responses as additional facts or documents are discovered, revealed, recalled or otherwise ascertained, and as further analysis, research and discovery disclose additional facts, documents, contentions or legal theories which may apply.  Defendant specifically reserves the right to utilize subsequently discovered facts, documents or evidence at trial and also specifically reserves the right to object to the disclosure and/or production of any subsequently discovered facts, evidence or documents and, by responding to these Form Interrogatories, expressly does not waive any such objections.

Subject to and without waiving such objections or claims of privilege, Defendant responds to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) as follows:

RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 1.1:

            Michael W. Fisher, 504 Looking Glass Drive, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765; David E. Outwater, Esq., 2102 Business Center Dr. Suite 151, Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 253-5744.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2.1:

a)            Michael W. Fisher;

b)            None.

c)            Not applicable.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2.2:

September 15, 1960; Long Beach, California

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2.5:

Defendant incorporates herein the General Objections asserted above.  Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Defendant answers as follows:

a)            504 Looking Glass Drive, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765 from February 2006 to present;

b)            12401 Euclid Street, #101, Garden Grove, CA 92840 – from 2004-2006.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2.6:

Defendant incorporates herein the General Objections asserted above.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT” and when any alleged “INCIDENT” occurred as Plaintiff’s 34-page Second Amended Complaint references multiple dates spanning over a year.  Since the term “INCIDENT” is nonsensical in the context of this litigation, responding party is unable to respond to this request as presented.  Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Defendant answers as follows:

a)            R.D. Financial Services, Inc. from 5-15-08 to present.

b)            President, Sec./Treasurer, Sales Rep, Manager, Advisor at NIAP from inception to June 30, 2007.

c)            WESI titles – Director of Community Services, President, CEO, Sec/Treas., Manager, member of Board of Directors, Vice President, Seminar Department Manager, Booker, Sales Manager, Speaker, Legal Department Manager, Certified Legal Document preparer, Arizona Certified Legal Document preparer, Instructor.  From 1/1/97 to 1/1/2008.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2.7:

Defendant incorporates herein the General Objections asserted above.  Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Defendant answers as follows:

a)            Santa Ana Junior College, Coastline Community College, Cal State University Fullerton, International Seminary, Alameda College

b)            1985-2005

c)            Graduate degree

d)            AA in religious studies, BA in legal studies, Master’s degree in business.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2.8:

Defendant incorporates herein the General Objections asserted above.  Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Defendant answers as follows: No.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2.11:

Defendant incorporates herein the General Objections asserted above.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT” and when any alleged “INCIDENT” occurred as Plaintiff’s 34-page Second Amended Complaint references multiple dates spanning over a year.  Since the term “INCIDENT” is nonsensical in the context of this litigation, responding party is unable to respond to this request as presented.  Subject to and without waiving the above objections, during that period of time that is identified in the Cross-Complaint whereby Mr. Fisher was working for the benefit of NIAP, at the direction of NIAP, and on behalf of NIAP at least until his resignation on June 30, 2007, he was arguably an agent of NIAP.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 4.1:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”  Subject to and without waiving these, or any other objections or claims of privilege, Defendant responds as follows:  Defendant is currently unaware of any applicable insurance policies. 

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 4.2:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”  Subject to and without waiving these, or any other objections or claims of privilege, Defendant responds as follows:  No.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8.1:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”  Subject to and without waiving these objections, or any other objections or claims of privilege, Defendant responds as follows:  Yes.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8.2:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”   Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds:  Roger and Mr. Fisher incorporated NIAP and ran it together from its inception.  Mr. Fisher’s held titles of President/Secretary/Treasurer, Sales Rep., Manager, and Advisor.  Mr. Fisher’s duties were to manage and direct sales force ranging in size from 10 to 25 persons who worked in the field selling insurance, and primarily annuities.  Most of the time it consisted of listening to the reps, setting budgets, obtaining sales figures and listening to all of them complain and resolve those complaints as best as possible.  He also purchased supplies, ordered materials, and signed contracts.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8.3:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”   Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Defendant responds as follows:  As to NIAP, June 30, 2007, which is when Mr. Fisher resigned as an officer of the company – Mr. Fisher has not received the compensation due and owing, which is the subject of the Cross-Complaint.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8.4:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”    Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows:  $9,000 per month.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8.5:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”   Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is illogical and seeks irrelevant information in light of the nature of the instant action (i.e., not an accident or worker’s compensation claim).

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8.6:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”   Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is illogical and seeks irrelevant information in light of the nature of the instant action (i.e., not an accident or worker’s compensation claim).

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8.7:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”   Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it improperly seeks expert testimony in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010, et seq.  Subject to and without waiving these, or any other objections or claims of privilege, Defendant responds as follows:    From August 2006 to June 2007, Defendant is owed compensation in the amount of $99,000, plus statutory waiting penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8.8:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”    Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it improperly seeks expert testimony in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows:    Mr. Fisher is unaware of any future lost income responsive as to his understanding of this interrogatory.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 9.1:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”    Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it improperly seeks expert testimony in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010 et seq.  Subject to and without waiving these, or any other objections or claims of privilege, Defendant responds as follows:    Yes.

a.                  Payments to five NIAP sales representatives for commissions due and owing for insurance/annuity transactions completed on behalf of NIAP.

b.                  These documents were produced showing the payments, and responding party identifies it was between June 2007 and January 2008.

c.                  Approximately $20,000.

d.                  Mr. Fisher and the sales representatives that he paid, which are identified in the documents already produced.  Patrick Jon Runninger, Philip Faron, Robert Tezlaf, Chad Gonzalez, and Harvey Gonzalez.

a.                  Loan to NIAP

b.                  December 2006

c.                  $15,000.

d.                   Michael Fisher, Sue Kruse, American Investors, Bryon Rice, and Mark Heitz.

a.             Payment of NIAP credit card

b.             October 2007

c.             Approximately $5,000.

d.             Sue Kruse, representatives of Wells Fargo bank, Beth Bostick, Matthew Fletcher, and Cheryl Allaire.

a.                  Commission for annuity transaction with American Equity Insurance

b.                  August or September 2007

c.                  $14,500.

d.                   Patrick Runninger, American Equity, and Sue Kruse

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 9.2:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its reference to “INCIDENT.”  Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows:  Defendant has produced all responsive documents identifying the amounts due and owing, and Defendant is not obligated to create a compilation of these same documents already produced in discovery.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 12.1:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.   Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation.  The term “INCIDENT” is nonsensical, overbroad and harassing in the context of this litigation, responding party is unable to respond to this request as presented. 

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 12.2:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.   Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation.  The term “INCIDENT” is nonsensical, overbroad and harassing in the context of this litigation, responding party is unable to respond to this request as presented.  Lastly, Defendant objects on the ground that this interrogatory improperly seeks discovery of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine [Nacht & Lewis Architects v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4^th 214.]  Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged interview.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER 12.3:

Defendant incorporates the foregoing General Objections by reference as if set forth in full herein.   Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation.  The term “INCIDENT” is nonsensical, overbroad and harassing in the context of this litigation, responding party is unable to respond to this request as presented.  Lastly, Defendant objects on the ground that this interrogatory improperly seeks discovery of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.  [Nacht & Lewis Architects v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4^th 214.]  Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged report.