Lynch v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Experian is a credit reporting agency governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Lynch and Nelson alleged that, after they filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge, Experian continued reporting the balance of their Dominium Account as owing. Their principal claim was that Experian failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the account’s credit reporting. Experian denied liability and maintained that it had reasonable procedures, called a “bankruptcy scrub,” for updating accounts after bankruptcy discharges.

During discovery, the plaintiffs challenged Experian’s responses to Requests for Production (RFPs) 15, 16, 17, 22, 26, and 32, and Interrogatory 15. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court also explained that a party resisting discovery must show undue burden or disproportionality and cannot satisfy that burden with boilerplate objections.

Rulings on the Discovery Requests

RFPs 15 and 16. These requests sought documents about procedures used to report pre-bankruptcy debts after a bankruptcy filing or discharge. The court found the information relevant but limited the required production. Experian must produce documents that comprehensively describe how its bankruptcy scrub worked from May 1, 2019, through October 5, 2020, including amendments, training materials, and other documents showing changes during that period. The production is limited to documents showing how the scrub works generally or how it works for debts having a positive balance both before and after the bankruptcy discharge, as the plaintiffs alleged occurred with the Dominium Account. Experian need not search for or produce documents concerning an alleged industry-wide standard of reasonableness because the requests, as served, did not seek that information. The motion concerning RFPs 15 and 16 was therefore granted in part and denied in part.

RFP 26. This request sought materials about Experian’s policy changes and implementation resulting from a prior settlement order. The court noted that the prior order was not binding on the District of Minnesota and that the plaintiffs had not argued that compliance with it was an appropriate measure of reasonableness. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion regarding RFP 26.

RFP 32. This request sought communications about changes to Experian’s post-bankruptcy scrub procedures. The court applied the same analysis used for RFPs 15 and 16 and granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning RFP 32, subject to the same narrowed scope.

RFP 17. This request sought technical documents and system manuals explaining how Experian’s automated scrub process worked. The court rejected Experian’s position that declarations could substitute for producing responsive documents under a request for production. However, the court found the dispute moot because the responsive information was also covered by RFPs 15 and 16. The court stated that Experian should conduct a good-faith search for relevant and proportional technical documents within the narrowed time period.

RFP 22. This request sought agreements with public-record vendors concerning information about the plaintiffs. The court found most of the request irrelevant because the plaintiffs had not alleged that the vendor supplied incorrect information, that Experian knew the vendor was unreliable, or that Experian failed to investigate the vendor’s role in the alleged inaccuracy. The court required Experian to search for and produce communications, including relevant contract portions, warning that the vendor’s information was untrustworthy, unreliable, or should be treated with caution. The motion concerning RFP 22 was denied for the most part but granted to that limited extent.

Interrogatory 11. The court stated that the plaintiffs’ memorandum appeared to include this interrogatory by mistake and that the parties agreed it was not disputed. The court made no ruling concerning Interrogatory 11.

Interrogatory 15. The plaintiffs sought information about what Experian disclosed to third parties about their account between September 21 and October 5, 2020. The court denied the motion to compel further production because Experian represented that it did not keep records of the specific information provided in each inquiry. The court also noted that Experian had identified two parties that received information about the plaintiffs before the inaccurate reporting was corrected, which it found sufficient for the discovery issue before it.

Fees and Costs

Experian requested fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Because the parties had made multiple attempts to resolve the dispute and the plaintiffs’ motion was granted in part and denied in part, the court found that awarding expenses would be unjust. The court denied Experian’s motion for fees and costs and ordered each side to bear its own fees and expenses.

Final Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery. It separately denied Experian’s motion for an award of fees and costs.