EFiled: Jan 31 2020 03:12PMES SS)
`Transaction ID 64679666
`{°“KeFX)|
`Case No. 2017-0901-VC
`3Woes
`oSOFFDES\SY
`
`EXHIBIT 39
`EXHIBIT 39
`
`EFiled: Jan 31 2020 03:12PM EST
`Transaction ID 64679666
`Case No. 2017-0901-VC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`By E-Mail
`Eric Selden, Esq.
`Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`
`
`Dear Eric:
`
`
`RE: Brookdale International Partners, L.P., et al. v. Nutraceutical International
`Corporation, C.A. No. 2017-0901-TMR
`
`
`March 15, 2018
`
`
`
`We write on behalf of Petitioners regarding Respondent’s responses and objections to
`Petitioners’ first set of requests for production (the “Requests”). In the hope of facilitating a
`constructive dialogue, this letter addresses certain deficiencies in Respondent’s responses and
`objections.1 Please provide times when Respondent’s counsel will be available to meet and confer
`on these issues during the week of April 2.
`
`In the interim, Petitioners request that Respondent promptly commence the production of
`core responsive documents. Core documents include: (i) the contents of Respondent’s “data room”
`maintained in connection with the Merger; (ii) the closing binder for the Merger; (iii) financial
`advisors’ retention agreements and fairness opinions; and (iv) Board (including all special and
`subcommittees thereof) minutes, materials, and presentations relating to the Merger. These
`documents can be located with minimal effort and their production need not await the parties’
`negotiation of a search protocol. Petitioners agree to treat any documents produced as Attorneys’
`Eyes Only pending the parties’ reaching agreement on a confidentiality order.
`
`The Relevant Time Period
`
`The Requests seek documents from the period from August 23, 2012 to the present (the
`
`“Relevant Time Period”). Respondent has objected to the Relevant Time Period and has proposed
`a time period of January 1, 2017 through August 23, 2017. In other words, Respondent proposes
`a mere seven-month period that ends on the Merger date and begins only twenty-two days before
`HGGC formally indicated interest in acquiring Nutraceutical—even while the Proxy discloses that:
`(i) “[f]rom time to time during the two year period preceding the execution and delivery of the
`merger agreement, the Company received various unsolicited inquiries from representatives of
`certain potential strategic and financial sponsor parties, including, on one occasion, HGGC as
`
`1 Petitioners reserve the right to raise additional deficiencies at a later date.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Eric Selden, Esq.
`March 15, 2018
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`discussed below, to discuss potential strategic transactions involving the Company”; and (ii)
`during the summer of 2016, HGGC contacted Nutraceutical about the possibility of HGGC’s
`making an equity investment in Nutraceutical. Respondent’s proposed time period is unreasonably
`short.
`
`Petitioners in an appraisal action may obtain discovery from the respondent dating five
`
`years before the merger. See, e.g., Kaye v. Pantone, Inc., 1981 WL 15072, at *2 (Del. Ch. Oct. 6,
`1981) (ordering respondent to produce documents dating five years prior to the merger date).
`Notwithstanding the broad scope of discovery available under the law, Petitioners are willing to
`consider narrower search parameters for the earlier part of the Relevant Time Period.
`
`
`It is similarly well settled that post-merger discovery is relevant in appraisal actions. See,
`e.g., Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 758 A.2d 485, 499 (Del. 2000) (finding post-merger
`discovery relevant “to show that plans in effect at the time of the merger have born fruition”); Lane
`v. Cancer Treatment Centers of Am., Inc., 1994 WL 263558, at *4 (Del. Ch. May 25, 1994) (“The
`Court finds that [defendants] must provide post-merger documents . . . that reflect pre-merger
`financial data and that reflect post-merger data for the one-year period following the date of the
`merger. The post-merger data may be ‘known or susceptible of proof on the date of the merger
`and thus may be relevant . . . to the valuation of plaintiffs’ shares as of the date of the merger.”);
`Donald J. Wolfe, Jr. & Michael A. Pittenger, Corporate and Commercial Practice in the Delaware
`Court of Chancery § 8.10[c], at 8-260–61 (2017) (observing that the Court of Chancery “will
`permit some discovery regarding the post-merger performance of the surviving or resulting
`corporation”). Petitioners are willing to consider narrower search parameters for the post-Merger
`portion of the Relevant Time Period.
`
`Respondent’s Objections to the Requests
`
`Please confirm that, subject to the parties’ agreement on a search protocol, Respondent: (i)
`
`will not withhold responsive documents on the basis of General Objection No. 6; (ii) will not
`withhold documents responsive to Request No. 1 on the basis that they are “publicly available” or
`“obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive”; and
`(iii) will not withhold documents responsive to Request No. 10 on the basis that they are already
`within the possession of Petitioners.
`
`
`Request Nos. 7 and 8 seek “[t]he complete list of the stockholders entitled to vote at the
`Special Meeting” and “[d]ocuments sufficient to show how each stockholder entitled to vote at the
`Special Meeting voted its shares at the Special Meeting with respect to the proposal to adopt the
`Merger Agreement.” Respondent has objected to Request Nos. 7 and 8 as unduly burdensome,
`overly broad, not reasonably limited in scope, and seeking documents that are neither relevant to
`any party’s claims or defenses nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence. Based on Respondent’s objections, it appears that Respondent does not intend to rely
`on the Special Meeting vote totals of Cede & Co. or any other record holder to argue that any
`Petitioner lacks standing to seek appraisal. Please confirm that Respondent will not challenge any
`Petitioner’s standing based on the Special Meeting vote totals of Cede & Co. or any other record
`holder. If Respondent is not willing to provide such confirmation, then the documents requested
`in Request Nos. 7 and 8 are relevant and should be produced.
`
`

`

`
`
`Eric Selden, Esq.
`March 15, 2018
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`Request No. 9 seeks “[a]ll documents concerning the record date for the Special Meeting.”
`
`Respondent has objected to Request No. 9 as unduly burdensome, overly broad, not reasonably
`limited in scope, and seeking documents that are neither relevant to any party’s claims or defenses
`nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As we have previously
`advised Respondent’s counsel, the public information available to Petitioners suggests that the
`record date for the Special Meeting might have been backdated, in violation of 8 Del. C. § 213.
`Moreover, if Respondent intends to challenge any Petitioner’s standing to seek appraisal based on
`the voting or non-voting of any record holder or beneficial owner at the Special Meeting, then the
`documents requested in Request No. 9 are relevant for that additional reason and should be
`produced. In addition, please explain the basis for Respondent’s assertion that it would be unduly
`burdensome to search for and produce documents concerning the record date—seemingly a narrow
`issue unlikely to generate many documents, particularly if the record date was set in accordance
`with Section 213.
`
`Custodians and Sources of Potentially Responsive Information
`
`In order to facilitate the negotiation of a search protocol, please provide the following
`
`information for the Relevant Time Period:
`
`
`1. The full list of custodians who possess potentially responsive information in response
`to the Requests, as well as:
`
`a. All email accounts for each custodian
`
`b. All electronic data sources for each custodian, including but not limited to
`desktop computers, laptop computers, tablets, and smartphones
`
`c. All locations of hard copy documents responsive to the Requests
`
`2. All central electronic data sources containing information potentially responsive to the
`Requests
`
`3. All central locations of hard copy documents responsive to the Requests
`
`We are optimistic that the parties can reach a resolution and look forward to discussing
`these issues during the week of April 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`/s/ Marie M. Degnan
`
`Marie M. Degnan
`
`
`cc:
`
`Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
`
`

`

`
`
`Eric Selden, Esq.
`March 15, 2018
`Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`Matthew Solum, Esq.
`David Ross, Esq.
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 40
`EXHIBIT 40
`
`

`

`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Degnan, Marie
`Wednesday, April 24, 2019 11:57 AM
`Eric Selden
`Solum, Matthew (msolum@kirkland.com); Chamberlin, Brandon W.
`(brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com); Shimada, Stephanie Michelle
`(stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com); David Ross; Jenkins, Steve
`RE: Brookdale v. Nutraceutical - Search Terms
`
`Eric,  
` 
`We can use this dial‐in for Friday’s call: 
` 
`Dial‐in:  877‐699‐4804 
`Access Code:  302 504 3705 
` 
`Best, 
`Marie 
` 
`From: Eric Selden [mailto:ESelden@ramllp.com]  
`Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 11:52 AM 
`To: Degnan, Marie <MDegnan@ashbygeddes.com> 
`Cc: Solum, Matthew (msolum@kirkland.com) <msolum@kirkland.com>; Chamberlin, Brandon W. 
`(brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com) <brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com>; Shimada, Stephanie Michelle 
`(stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com) <stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com>; David Ross <DRoss@ramllp.com>; Jenkins, 
`Steve <SJenkins@ashbygeddes.com> 
`Subject: Re: Brookdale v. Nutraceutical ‐ Search Terms 
` 
`Marie,
`
`That should work for us. I am out of the office right now, do you mind sending a dial in? Otherwise I am happy to send
`one later today.
`
`Best regards,
`Eric
`
`Eric D. Selden | Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP
`100 S. West Street | Suite 400 | Wilmington, DE 19801
`302.576.1605 (office) |302.650.7277 (cell)
`eselden@ramllp.com | www.ramllp.com
`
`1
`
`

`

`From: Degnan, Marie <mdegnan@ashbygeddes.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 9:29 AM 
`To: Eric Selden 
`Cc: Solum, Matthew (msolum@kirkland.com); Chamberlin, Brandon W. (brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com); Shimada, 
`Stephanie Michelle (stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com); David Ross; Jenkins, Steve 
`Subject: RE: Brookdale v. Nutraceutical ‐ Search Terms  
`
`  
`Eric, 
`
`  
`Would 2pm on Friday work? 
`
`  
`Marie 
`
`  
`
`From: Eric Selden [mailto:ESelden@ramllp.com]  
`Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 11:24 AM 
`To: Degnan, Marie <MDegnan@ashbygeddes.com> 
`Cc: Solum, Matthew (msolum@kirkland.com) <msolum@kirkland.com>; Chamberlin, Brandon W. 
`(brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com) <brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com>; Shimada, Stephanie Michelle 
`(stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com) <stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com>; David Ross <DRoss@ramllp.com>; Jenkins, 
`Steve <SJenkins@ashbygeddes.com> 
`Subject: RE: Brookdale v. Nutraceutical ‐ Search Terms 
`
`  
`Marie, 
`
` 
`Do you have availability tomorrow afternoon or Friday afternoon to discuss this?  
`
` 
`Best regards,  
`Eric 
`
` 
`Eric D. Selden | Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP 
`100 S. West Street | Suite 400 | Wilmington, DE  19801 
`302.576.1605 (office) |302.650.7277 (cell) 
`eselden@ramllp.com | www.ramllp.com 
`
`From: Degnan, Marie [MDegnan@ashbygeddes.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 9:08 AM
`
`2
`
`

`

`To: Eric Selden
`Cc: Solum, Matthew (msolum@kirkland.com); Chamberlin, Brandon W. (brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com); Shimada,
`Stephanie Michelle (stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com); David Ross; Jenkins, Steve
`Subject: RE: Brookdale v. Nutraceutical - Search Terms 
`
`Eric, 
`
`  
`Thank you for sending this revised search protocol.  We are in agreement with it, subject to resolution of the following 
`issues: 
`
`  
`Search Terms 
`As indicated in Petitioners’ initial draft of a search protocol, Respondent should search for the names, code names, and 
`email domains of: (i) all potential strategic and financial sponsor parties that made inquiries about potential strategic 
`transactions involving Nutraceutical; and (ii) all potential strategic and financial sponsor parties that were solicited by 
`Nutraceutical or its advisors.  This search should be run for the time period of August 23, 2014 to August 23, 
`2017.  Please confirm that Respondent will conduct this search and please identify the appropriate search terms and 
`custodians. 
`
`  
`Custodians 
`The members of the special committee (J. Kimo Esplin, Michael D. Burke, and James D. Stice) should be included as 
`custodians.  Respondent previously proposed Mr. Stice as a custodian, but has omitted him, without explanation, from 
`its revised search protocol.  Similarly, Respondent should conduct a search of Gregory M. Benson’s documents.  Given 
`that Mr. Benson was both a member of Nutraceutical’s board and a co‐founder and managing director of HGGC during 
`the time when Nutraceutical was considering inquiries from HGGC and other potential merger partners, his involvement 
`in the sales process is highly relevant.  Please confirm whether Respondent will agree to search the documents of 
`Messrs. Esplin, Burke, Stice, and Benson without our serving subpoenas.  If Respondent will agree to do so, Petitioners 
`will agree that a narrower set of search terms may be run against these custodians and we will provide proposed search 
`terms. 
`
`  
`Respondent should also include Stanley E. Soper as a custodian.  Given his financial interests in HGGC as disclosed in the 
`proxy, his involvement in the sales process is relevant.  Petitioners would be willing to agree to a narrower set of search 
`terms for the search of Mr. Soper’s documents.  Please confirm that Respondent will agree to Mr. Soper as a custodian, 
`and we will provide a narrower set of search terms for his custodial files. 
`
`  
`Sources of Potentially Responsive Information 
`
`3
`
`

`

`For each custodian whose files are being searched pursuant to this protocol, please identify the locations of potentially 
`responsive information is being collected and searched.  Please collect and search custodians’ personal accounts and 
`personal devices that could contain potentially responsive documents (including but not limited to information 
`responsive to Request No. 59), or else confirm that custodians for whom Respondent is not collecting and searching 
`personal accounts and devices did not use those accounts to communicate about potentially responsive information.  In 
`addition, please explain why emails from broadcast.shareholder.com, smartbrief.com, and pitchbook.com are excluded 
`as noted in the revised search protocol. 
`
`  
`Best, 
`Marie 
`
`  
`Marie M. Degnan | A S H B Y &G E D D E S 
`500 Delaware Avenue |  P.O. Box 1150 | Wilmington, Delaware  19899 
`(t) 302.654.1888 | (f) 302.654.2067 | ashbygeddes.com | vCard 
`
`  
`This e‐mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for 
`delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e‐mail message is strictly 
`prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e‐mail message from your computer. 
`  
`  
`
`  
`
`From: Eric Selden [mailto:ESelden@ramllp.com] 
`Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 6:13 PM 
`To: Degnan, Marie <MDegnan@ashbygeddes.com> 
`Cc: Solum, Matthew (msolum@kirkland.com) <msolum@kirkland.com>; Chamberlin, Brandon W. 
`(brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com) <brandon.chamberlin@kirkland.com>; Shimada, Stephanie Michelle 
`(stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com) <stephanie.shimada@kirkland.com>; David Ross <DRoss@ramllp.com>; Jenkins, 
`Steve <SJenkins@ashbygeddes.com> 
`Subject: Brookdale v. Nutraceutical ‐ Search Terms 
`
`  
`Marie,  
`
`  
`Attached is a revised proposed search protocol for Respondent’s document collection and review.  Please let us know if 
`this is agreeable or if there is anything you would like to discuss. 
`
`  
`Best regards,  
`
`4
`
`

`

`Eric 
`
`  
`Eric D. Selden| ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP 
`100 S. West Street | Suite 400 | Wilmington, DE  19801 
`302.576.1605 (office) |302.650.7277 (cell) 
`eselden@ramllp.com |www.ramllp.com 
`
`  
` The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may
`be privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or telephone (302-576-1600) and destroy the
`original message. Thank you.
` Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP is not providing any advice with respect to any federal tax issue in connection with this matter. 
`
` The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may
`be privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or telephone (302-576-1600) and destroy the
`original message. Thank you.
` Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP is not providing any advice with respect to any federal tax issue in connection with this matter. 
`
`The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may
`be privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or telephone (302-576-1600) and destroy the
`original message. Thank you.
` Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP is not providing any advice with respect to any federal tax issue in connection with this matter.
`
`5
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 41
`EXHIBIT 41
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
`
`BROOKDALE INTERNATIONAL
`PARTNERS, L.P., BROOKDALE
`GLOBAL OPPORTUNITY FUND,
`2017 BERKELEY LLC, and QUADRE
`INVESTMENTS, LP,
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`NUTRACEUTICAL
`INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 2017-0901-TMR
`
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`Respondent.
`RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONERS’
`FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
`RESPONDENT NUTRACEUTICAL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
`Pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 26 and 34, Respondent Nutraceutical
`
`International Corporation, (“Nutraceutical”), by its undersigned attorneys, hereby
`
`objects and responds to Petitioners’ First Requests for Production of Documents
`
`(the “Requests,” and each, a “Request”), dated December 19, 2017.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Nutraceutical hereby responds to the Requests subject to the General
`
`Objections, Objections to Definitions and Instructions, and Specific Objections and
`
`Responses to the Requests (collectively, the “Objections”) set forth herein without
`
`waiving and expressly preserving all such objections. The General Objections and
`
`Objections to Definitions and Instructions are incorporated in each response set
`
`
`
`
`
`61725367
`Feb 23 2018
`06:46PM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`forth below. The Objections qualify any statement, whether explicit or implicit,
`
`that Nutraceutical will produce any documents or provide any information.
`
`Nutraceutical also expressly preserves: (a) any objections as to the privilege of any
`
`document produced in response to the Requests; (b) the right to object to other
`
`discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Requests or
`
`any documents produced in response to the Requests; (c) the right to move for the
`
`entry of a protective order with respect to the Requests; (d) the right to assert any
`
`and all objections to the admissibility into evidence of any document produced in
`
`response to the Requests; and (e) the right to object to the use of these responses in
`
`any proceeding other than the above-captioned action.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Nutraceutical objects to the Requests, including the Definitions and
`
`Instructions, to the extent they seek to impose any obligations on it beyond those
`
`imposed by Court of Chancery Rules 26 and 34.
`
`2.
`
`Nutraceutical objects to the Requests to the extent they seek
`
`documents or information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, work product doctrine, business strategy immunity, common interest
`
`privilege, joint defense privilege, statutory privilege, or any other legally
`
`cognizable privilege or immunity. Neither these responses nor the production of
`
`any document or information is a waiver of any applicable privilege or immunity.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In the event any privileged document or information is produced by Nutraceutical,
`
`its production is inadvertent and does not constitute a waiver of any privilege or
`
`immunity. If Petitioners have disclosed such document or its contents before being
`
`notified of any inadvertent production, Petitioners shall take reasonable steps to
`
`retrieve it.
`
`3.
`
`Nutraceutical objects to the Requests on the grounds that they are
`
`overly broad, unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, unduly burdensome, or seek
`
`information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in this appraisal
`
`proceeding nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. Nutraceutical further objects to the extent the Requests seek “all
`
`documents” or “all communications” relating to a given subject matter under
`
`circumstances in which the production of a subset of “all” would be sufficient to
`
`show the pertinent information.
`
`4.
`
`Nutraceutical further objects to the Requests to the extent they purport
`
`to require Nutraceutical to search the files of all persons who may possess
`
`responsive information on the grounds that it would be impractical and unduly
`
`burdensome to do so. In accordance with Court of Chancery Rules 26 and 34, and
`
`any other applicable rules, laws, or orders, Nutraceutical agrees to confer in good
`
`faith with Petitioners regarding the scope of Nutraceutical’s document collection
`
`and production, including a search protocol using a reasonable list of the key
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`custodians whose files Nutraceutical will search, a reasonable list of the search
`
`terms to use in the collection of the key custodians’ electronic files in response to
`
`the Requests, and reasonable time parameters for Nutraceutical’s production in
`
`response to the Requests (the “Search Protocol”). Nutraceutical’s responses
`
`herein,
`
`including any undertaking
`
`to produce responsive, non-privileged
`
`documents, are expressly subject to the foregoing search. Accordingly, to the
`
`extent that any responsive documents may exist that are not produced by
`
`Nutraceutical, it is not due to and shall not be deemed to be due to any failure on
`
`the part of Nutraceutical to locate and produce all documents responsive to the
`
`Requests.
`
`5.
`
`Nutraceutical objects to the Requests to the extent they seek
`
`documents or information that are not currently in the possession, custody, or
`
`control of Nutraceutical. Without limiting the foregoing, Nutraceutical objects to
`
`the Requests to the extent they seek documents or information in the possession,
`
`custody, or control of Nutraceutical’s investment bankers, lawyers, advisors, other
`
`agents, or any other third parties.
`
`6.
`
`Nutraceutical objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek
`
`documents or information the discovery of which is cumulative or duplicative, or
`
`that are obtainable publicly or from some other source that is more convenient, less
`
`burdensome, or less expensive.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Nutraceutical objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek the
`
`production of proprietary, confidential, competitive, trade secret, or personal
`
`information. Nutraceutical further objects to the Requests to the extent they seek
`
`documents or information subject to confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements
`
`with third parties. Due to the confidential nature of most, if not all, documents and
`
`information Petitioners seek through the Requests, Nutraceutical will not produce
`
`documents responsive to the Requests, including documents that Nutraceutical
`
`states it will produce in response to a specific Request, until Petitioners and
`
`Nutraceutical have entered into a confidentiality agreement or a mutually agreed-
`
`upon protective order is entered by the Court.
`
`8.
`
`Nutraceutical objects to the Requests to the extent they seek
`
`production of any documents or information, the disclosure of which would violate
`
`rights of privacy or other judicially recognized protections and privileges, or any
`
`Court order or agreement obligating Nutraceutical to keep documents and
`
`information confidential, or to the extent that they seek documents or information
`
`protected from disclosure by any applicable federal or state law, rule, or regulation.
`
`9.
`
`Nutraceutical objects to the Requests to the extent that they are vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, fail to describe the documents or information sought
`
`with reasonable particularity or otherwise lack sufficient precision to permit
`
`Nutraceutical to formulate a response or to identify responsive documents or
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`information. Nutraceutical further objects to the Requests to the extent that they
`
`seek the production of documents or information relating to matters that are not
`
`raised in the pleadings in the above-captioned action on the grounds that such
`
`documents or information are neither relevant to such action nor reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in such action.
`
`10. Nutraceutical objects to Petitioners’ attempt to dictate the format for
`
`the production of documents. Nutraceutical will meet and confer with Petitioners
`
`to reach a mutually agreed-to format for the production of documents in this action.
`
`11. Nutraceutical objects to the Requests to the extent that they call for
`
`the production of documents that are not maintained in the ordinary course of
`
`business and are not easily retrievable at reasonable expense. Nutraceutical further
`
`objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require Nutraceutical to
`
`perform anything more than a reasonable and diligent search for documents where
`
`responsive documents would reasonably be expected to be found.
`
`12. By responding and objecting to the Requests, Nutraceutical does not
`
`admit, adopt, or acquiesce in any factual or legal contention, assertion, assumption,
`
`characterization, or implication contained in the Requests, unless expressly stated.
`
`13. No objection or limitation, or lack thereof, made in these responses
`
`and objections shall be deemed an admission by Nutraceutical as to the existence
`
`or nonexistence of any document in the possession, custody, or control of
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Nutraceutical that is responsive to any specific Request. Any indication that
`
`Nutraceutical will produce documents or information in response to a Request is
`
`subject to the existence of such documents or information in Nutraceutical’s
`
`possession, custody, or control.
`
`14. Nutraceutical provides these responses without waiving or intending
`
`to waive, but rather preserving and intending to preserve:
`
`a.
`
`All questions as to the competency, relevance, materiality, privilege,
`
`and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the information
`
`produced or disclosed in response to the Requests, or the subject
`
`matters thereof, in this or any subsequent proceedings, including the
`
`trial of this or any other action;
`
`b.
`
`The right to object on any ground to the use of any information
`
`produced or disclosed in response to the Requests, or the subject
`
`matters thereof, in this or any subsequent proceedings, including the
`
`trial of this or any other action;
`
`c.
`
`The right to object on any ground at any time to any demand(s) for
`
`further responses to these or any other requests for production or other
`
`discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matters of
`
`the Requests responded to herein; and
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`d.
`
`The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, or clarify any of the
`
`responses provided herein.
`
`15. Nutraceutical objects to the Requests to the extent that they demand
`
`production of documents or information by a certain date. Nutraceutical further
`
`asserts that the deadline Petitioners have set for the production of documents or
`
`information pursuant to the Requests is unreasonable given the scope of the
`
`Requests. Nutraceutical agrees to confer in good faith with Petitioners to
`
`determine a reasonable time frame for the commencement of the production of
`
`documents and information in response to the Requests.
`
`16. Subject to and without waiver of its Objections, Nutraceutical is
`
`amenable to meeting and conferring with Petitioners on any of the objections or
`
`responses contained herein.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
`
`17. The words used in Nutraceutical’s Responses shall have their plain,
`
`commonly understood meanings. The following words, however, shall mean as
`
`follows for purposes of these Responses.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“Action” shall mean the above-captioned case.
`
`“Petition” shall mean the verified petition Petitioners filed in
`
`the Action on December 19, 2017.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`18. Nutraceutical objects to the definition of “Bain Capital” on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the
`
`extent it includes unidentified “divisions or business segments” and “predecessors,
`
`successors, assigns, parents,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, members, partners,
`
`shareholders, owners, officers, directors, employees and agents, and any person
`
`acting or purporting to act on their respective behalf.” Nutraceutical will interpret
`
`“Bain Capital” to mean “Bain Capital, Inc., Bain Capital, LP, and Bain Capital
`
`Investors, LLC.”
`
`19. Nutraceutical objects to the definition of “Board” to the extent it
`
`refers to the composition or members of the Nutraceutical board of directors at
`
`times not material to this proceeding.
`
`20. Nutraceutical objects to the definition of “HGGC” on the grounds that
`
`it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent it
`
`includes unidentified “divisions or business segments” and “predecessors,
`
`successors, assigns, parents,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, members, partners,
`
`shareholders, owners, officers, directors, employees and agents, and any person
`
`acting or purporting to act on their respective behalf.” Nutraceutical will interpret
`
`“HGGC” to mean “HGGC, LLC.”
`
`21. Nutraceutical objects to the definition of “identify” and “state” on the
`
`grounds that the definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Nutraceutical
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`will give the words “identify” and “state” their ordinary meaning in common
`
`English language usage.
`
`22. Nutraceutical objects to the definition of “Piper Jaffray” on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the
`
`extent it includes unidentified “divisions or business segments” and “predecessors,
`
`successors, assigns, parents,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, members, partners,
`
`shareholders, owners, officers, directors, employees and agents, and any person
`
`acting or purporting to act on their respective behalf.” Nutraceutical will interpret
`
`“Piper Jaffray” to mean “Piper Jaffray Companies.”
`
`23. Nutraceutical objects to the definition of “PJSC” on the grounds that it
`
`is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent it
`
`includes unidentified “divisions or business segments” and “predecessors,
`
`successors, assigns, parents,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, members, partners,
`
`shareholders, owners, officers, directors, employees and agents, and any person
`
`acting or purporting to act on their respective behalf.” Nutraceutical will interpret
`
`“PJSC” to mean “Peter J. Solomon Company, LLC and its affiliate Peter J.
`
`Solomon Securities Company, LLC.”
`
`24. Nutraceutical objects to the definitions of “You,” “Your,” and
`
`“Nutraceutical” on the grounds that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome
`
`bec