In SRH Holdings, LLC v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., No. 23-10325-DJC (D. Mass. Jan. 16, 2026), Massachusetts Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal, stating: “It is undisputed…that [Plaintiff’s expert] never received nor reviewed the underlying materials that GEICO seeks”, ruled: “This Court, therefore, has no authority to order SRH to produce the materials”.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, Defendants Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “GEICO”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 2 (“RFP No. 2”), which sought all documents that SRH’s expert witnesses “reviewed in forming his or her opinions in this case.”

On August 25, 2025, SRH served its expert disclosures, including the expert report of Christopher Lee. He attached some exhibits to his report, including spreadsheets (Exhibits C and D). When GEICO requested that SRH provide Exhibits C and D in native format, Plaintiff provided some spreadsheets in native format in response. GEICO maintains that such spreadsheets were missing the “documents/data input into Exhibits C and D.”

Plaintiff’s counsel responded: “The data set forth in Exhibits C and D was compiled into spreadsheets on an ongoing basis during the conduct of SRH’s business. Payments of commissions were recorded as they were received by SRH. The commission statements from which the information was taken are not presently available. Therefore, additional documentation of the data cannot be produced.”

Plaintiff also stated that it produced a spreadsheet, which Richard Hurwitz, SRH’s principal, created, in its native format, setting forth monthly non-automobile insurance commission income for the entire period of its business operations (which was attached as Exhibit C to Lee’s report). In addition, Lee also provided “his own spreadsheet, which he created on the basis of information received from [Plaintiff], which contains the same data upon which damage calculations were made.” This document was attached as Exhibit D to Lee’s report. At oral argument, GEICO confirmed that it had in fact received Exhibits C and D in native format. Any underlying documents used to input information into the spreadsheet created by Hurwitz were not produced to nor reviewed by Lee.

In considering GEICO’s motion, Judge Boal stated: “GEICO complains that SRH has not produced ‘the underlying source data, inputs, or intermediate computational materials used to generate those spreadsheets (e.g., raw datasets/exports, query outputs, data dictionaries, parameter files, filter settings, and intermediate or ‘pilot’ runs).’…Such documents, however, are not responsive to RFP No. 2. While such documents may be relevant to this action, GEICO has not cited any other request for production that would encompass such documents.”

Continuing, she said: “GEICO also argues that this ‘omission violates the ‘facts or data considered’ standard, as it withholds factual ingredients the expert considered in shaping opinions—precisely the information Rule 26 requires GEICO to receive so it can replicate and test the calculations before depositions and Daubert deadlines.’…It is undisputed, however, that Lee never received nor reviewed the underlying materials that GEICO seeks. Rather, Lee received the spreadsheet that Hurwitz created and used that spreadsheet to make his own calculations. As such, those materials are not discoverable under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii).”

Denying GEICO’s motion to compel, Judge Boal stated: “This Court, therefore, has no authority to order SRH to produce the materials that GEICO seeks. At the January 14 hearing, however, SRH’s counsel expressed a willingness to provide voluntarily available bank statements showing commission payments and any commission statements still in the possession of SRH. This Court encourages SRH to do so.” She also denied GEICO’s request to re-depose Hurwitz and its request for sanctions.

So, what do you think? Did GEICO drop the ball by not requesting the underlying materials in one of its RFPs? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.