Marcelletti v. GEICO General Insurance Company

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH Document182_ Filed 10/06/25 Page1of4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v. 6:23-CV-06211 EAW CDH

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

The relevant procedural background to this Decision and Order is set forth in
the Court’s July 1, 2025 Decision and Order (Dkt. 159) (the “July 1, 2025 Decision
and Order’), familiarity with which is assumed. The July 1, 2025 Decision and Order
resolved in part a motion to compel filed by plaintiff John Marcelletti (“Plaintiff’),
which sought to compel defendant GEICO General Insurance Company (“Defendant”)
to produce, among other things, unredacted copies of certain internal GEICO
documents. (See Dkt. 43). In resolving the motion to compel, the Court reserved
decision as to one category of internal GEICO documents: GEICO’s records retention
schedule. (See Dkt. 159 at 20). Finding that the record was limited as to the relevance
of these documents, the Court directed Defendant to provide the Court with
unredacted copies of the records retention schedule for in camera review. (Id.).

Defendant subsequently provided the Court with both unredacted copies of the
records retention schedule, as well as the redacted copies that were produced to
Plaintiff. The Court has now reviewed both the unredacted and redacted copies to

determine whether any or all of the redacted information should be produced to

Case 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH Document182_ Filed 10/06/25 Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff in unredacted form. In reviewing the documents, the Court has considered
whether any of the redacted information was responsive to Plaintiffs original
document request! or implicated by Plaintiffs arguments as to why he needs these
documents.?

The Court has also considered its previous discussion of the applicable caselaw
regarding relevancy redactions (see generally id. at 13-15, 16-18), as well as the broad
standard of relevance in discovery, see, e.g., Cohalan v. Genie Indus., Inc., 276 F.R.D.
161, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). The Court’s decision is further informed by other courts
that have considered the extent to which document retention policies are relevant,
and therefore discoverable, under Rule 26. As one such court has summarized, courts
generally take three different approaches to when it is appropriate to compel
production of document retention policies:

On one end of the spectrum, some courts permit discovery of document

retention policies without any preliminary showing by the moving party

of spoliation or discovery misconduct. On the opposite end of the

spectrum, some courts refuse to allow discovery of document retention

policies unless the movant first establishes that spoliation is a

legitimate issue in the case. In the middle of the spectrum, some courts

permit discovery of document retention policies without a showing of

spoliation or discovery misconduct, but only in circumstances where the
non-moving party has claimed that requested discovery documents are

1 Plaintiffs request was for “[djocuments sufficient to identify Your document
destruction and retention policies, and any changes to the same, in effect at any time
since April 17, 2017.” (Dkt. 44-2 at 3).

2 Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s redactions of the records retention schedule
removed “possible custodial information,” made the documents “incomprehensible,”
and “interfere[ed] with Plaintiffs ability to identify potential witnesses.” (Dkt. 44 at
11). At oral argument, Plaintiff added that he intends to utilize the retention schedule
to know what records have been kept or destroyed, and to reference the schedule in
the event that Defendant claims certain documents are not in its possession. (See
Dkt. 159 at 5).

-2-

Case 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH Document182 Filed 10/06/25 Page 3 of 4

unavailable, or when there are indicia that the discovery process was
not thorough, reliable, or transparent.

McMorrow v. Mondelez Int, Inc., No. 17-CV-02327-BAS (JLB), 2019 WL 3852498, at
*3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2019) (quotations and citations omitted).

Here, the Court finds that the middle ground approach is appropriate. While
there is no evidence of discovery misconduct, the nature of the underlying dispute
over Defendant’s redactions raises fair questions about the thoroughness, reliability,
and transparency of Defendant’s discovery process. Cf. Burd v. Ford Motor Co., No.
3:13-CV-20976, 2015 WL 4137915, at *9 (S.D.W. Va. July 8, 2015) (permitting
discovery as to the defendant’s document retention policy where the plaintiffs
concerns about the thoroughness of the defendant’s document production were
sufficiently corroborated). As discussed in the July 1, 2025 Decision and Order,
Defendant did not seek advance permission from the Court before producing redacted
documents and generally asserted unfettered discretion to redact material that it
deemed irrelevant, without appropriate legal support for such a position. (Dkt. 159
at 17). The Court ordered Defendant to produce unredacted copies of GEICO’s claims
adjuster handbooks because it was not clear that, in making its redactions, Defendant
had properly considered its own affirmative defenses, in addition to Plaintiffs claim.
(Id. at 19-20). Likewise, in reviewing the unredacted records retention schedule, the
Court can readily identify several pieces of information—for example, the retention
policies for GEICO’s Claims Manual and Claims Code of Conduct— that could at least

be broadly relevant to this case.

Case 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH Document182_ Filed 10/06/25 Page 4of4

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant should produce its
unredacted records retention schedule, because Plaintiff has shown a need “to
determine the universe of responsive documents, evaluate the completeness of the
existing document production, identify any gaps in document production, and craft
targeted discovery requests to efficiently obtain any missing records.” McMorrow,
2019 WL 3852498, at *38; see also Sharma v. BMW of N. Am. LLC, No. 13-CV-02274-
MMC (KAW), 2016 WL 1019668, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) (“Knowledge of [the
defendant’s] document retention policies will allow Plaintiffs to assess the company's
document production, determine whether any relevant documents are lacking, and
evaluate whether additional discovery is necessary in this case.”). Moreover, given
that the sole basis for Defendant’s redactions is relevance (see Dkt. 56-1 at 8-9)—and
because none of the redacted information, on its face, appears to be sensitive—
Defendant has not shown any countervailing interest that warrants nondisclosure of
this information as between the parties in discovery.

Plaintiffs motion to compel as to GEICO’s records retention schedule (Dkt. 43)
is therefore granted. Within 14 days of the entry date of this Decision and Order,
Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff unredacted copies of GEICO’s records retention
schedule.

SO ORDERED.

(ow DHiblon

COLLEEN D. HOLLAND
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: Rochester, New York
October 6, 2025