Expert "Facts or Data Considered" Does Not Reach Beyond What Was Actually Reviewed

SRH Holdings, LLC v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., No. 23-10325-DJC (D. Mass. Jan. 16, 2026)

Why This Case Is Important

This ruling clarifies the boundaries of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) regarding expert disclosures. It reinforces that the "facts or data considered" by an expert are strictly limited to what the expert actually received or reviewed, preventing parties from using expert discovery to compel the production of underlying source data that the expert never saw.

Overview

In SRH Holdings, LLC v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., the defendants (GEICO) moved to compel the production of underlying source data used to create spreadsheets that were later attached to a plaintiff’s expert report. The plaintiff's expert, Christopher Lee, utilized a spreadsheet created by the plaintiff’s principal, Richard Hurwitz, which tracked commission income over several years. GEICO argued that the production of the native spreadsheets was insufficient because it lacked the "raw datasets, query outputs, and data dictionaries" used to generate the figures.

GEICO contended that the omission violated Rule 26, which requires the disclosure of "facts or data considered" by the witness in forming their opinions. They argued they needed this information to replicate and test the expert's calculations, stating the omission “withholds factual ingredients the expert considered in shaping opinions.” However, the plaintiff maintained that the original commission statements were no longer available and that the expert had only ever seen the final compiled spreadsheets. The court was tasked with determining if Rule 26 could be used to reach "upstream" data that never reached the expert's desk.

Ruling

Scope of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) Limited 

The court held that the expert disclosure requirements only encompass materials the expert actually "received or reviewed." Because it was undisputed that the expert never saw the underlying raw data GEICO sought, those materials did not fall under the "facts or data considered" standard. The court noted that while the expert used the spreadsheet to make his own calculations, he never possessed the "factual ingredients" contained in source materials used to build the spreadsheet itself.

Relevance vs. Responsiveness 

Judge Boal observed that while the underlying source data might be "relevant to this action," it was not responsive to the specific Request for Production (RFP) cited by GEICO. The court emphasized that a motion to compel must be grounded in a specific, outstanding discovery request. Since GEICO could not point to an RFP that specifically encompassed the "raw datasets and filter settings" beyond the expert-related request, the motion lacked a procedural basis.

No Authority to Compel Unavailable Data 

The court concluded it had "no authority to order" the production of materials that were neither reviewed by the expert nor currently available in the plaintiff's possession. The ruling noted that the plaintiff's principal had compiled the data on an "ongoing basis" and the original statements were "not presently available". Consequently, the court denied the motion to compel, the request to re-depose the principal, and the request for sanctions.

Expert Analysis by Hon. Andrew Peck (ret.), Senior Counsel, DLA Piper

The Federal Rules are clear as to the scope of expert discovery- information that the expert relied upon in reaching his expert opinion. Since the expert here only relied upon the summary chart, and never saw the underlying data, the party is not required to produce the underlying data as part of expert discovery. That should have been requested during the fact discovery period, but it was not.

‍Case Law Tip

This case serves as a reminder to litigators to separate their requests for general merits discovery from expert-related disclosures. If you need the raw data behind an expert's source documents, ensure you serve specific RFPs for that data early in the discovery process rather than relying on Rule 26 expert disclosures to "backdoor" the production. To ensure your discovery requests are appropriately scoped, review Exterro's Guide to the FRCP for best practices on drafting proportional and specific RFPs.

‍