Use It or Lose It: Court Won’t Strike Guardian’s Declaration in an ERISA Preemption Dispute After the Claimant Sat Out Discovery

In Hannon v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, No. 25-13431-LTS, 2026 WL 3093200 (D. Mass. Oct. 16, 2026), a Massachusetts federal court confronted a recurring question in ERISA litigation: what happens when a claimant waits until the insurer files its dispositive brief before trying to attack the evidence behind it. Judge Leo T. Sorokin’s answer was that the claimant loses most of what he asked for.

Guardian reduced and then terminated Plaintiff’s disability-benefit payments, and Plaintiff sued under state law. Guardian argued that ERISA preempts those state-law claims and, at Guardian’s request, the court bifurcated the case, devoting Phase I to preemption and setting roughly three months for wide-ranging discovery on that issue. Guardian produced its claim file and served initial disclosures. After Phase I discovery closed, Guardian filed its preemption brief and attached a declaration from its employee Anne Albrecht, its Key Account Manager, describing the formation of the policy at issue. Plaintiff then moved under Rule 37 to strike the declaration or, alternatively, to depose Albrecht and obtain the documents she relied on.

Did Guardian’s Rule 26 Disclosures Comply?

The court first questioned whether initial disclosures were even required, noting that Rule 26 exempts an “action for review on an administrative record,” an exemption the parties disputed. Because the court had not yet decided whether ERISA preempts Plaintiff’s claims, it held that the disclosure obligations applied, consistent with what both parties had proposed and done. On the substance, the court found Guardian fell short. Guardian incorporated by reference the individuals identified in its claim file, which included an email identifying Albrecht as its Key Account Manager, but Guardian never stated the subject matter of her knowledge as Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires. That deficiency, the court observed, was plain on the face of the disclosure.

Why Did the Court Refuse to Strike the Declaration?

A Rule 26 violation does not automatically produce exclusion. Under Rule 37(c)(1), a court may not impose that sanction absent harm to the opposing party, as the First Circuit held in Cruz-Vázquez v. Mennonite General Hospital, Inc., 613 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2010). The court found no harm here. Plaintiff had notice of Albrecht’s role and knowledge from two sources: the claim-file email, in which Albrecht identified herself as Key Account Manager and noted that Plaintiff was part of the original group of members that enrolled, and documents produced by the State Police Association of Massachusetts (SPAM), Plaintiff’s non-party employer, dozens of which carried Albrecht’s name in their titles. Despite that notice, Plaintiff moved to compel nothing, noticed no deposition, and served no discovery of any kind. Because Plaintiff had notice and did nothing, he suffered no harm, and exclusion was inappropriate.

Could the Claimant Depose the Declarant After Discovery Closed?

The court also declined to let Plaintiff depose Albrecht after the fact. As the court framed it, Plaintiff was effectively asking to await Guardian’s preemption brief, evaluate its arguments, and only then take the discovery he had passed up during Phase I. The court called that neither fair nor proper. The general preference for resolving cases on the merits did not change the result, given that Plaintiff understood the scope of Phase I discovery, learned Albrecht’s identity and role, and still took no discovery before the insurer’s brief arrived.

What Did the Court Order?

The court allowed the motion in part and denied it in part. It refused to strike the declaration and refused to permit Albrecht’s deposition, but it ordered Guardian to produce the documents Albrecht relied on in preparing her declaration, to the extent not already produced, by October 23, 2026. The court directed Plaintiff to respond to Guardian’s preemption brief by November 6, 2026, and limited Guardian’s reply, due November 13, 2026, to five pages.