Berscheid v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

On March 4, 2024, the court issued a summary-judgment order that granted in part and denied in part Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and denied Becky Berscheid’s motion for summary judgment. Both parties later sent letters asking for permission to file motions for clarification or reconsideration under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j).

Experian’s request

Experian asked the court to clarify two points. First, it asked the court to state that the earlier order had not found that Berscheid’s debt was legally uncollectible or that Experian’s reporting was inaccurate as a matter of law. The court agreed that this was not the earlier order’s holding. Instead, the earlier order found a material factual question about whether continuing to report the debt was materially misleading in light of an ambiguous state-court judgment that could indicate the debt was legally uncollectible. A jury could find the reporting materially misleading, particularly because Experian did not attach the state-court judgment or explain that the debt might be uncollectible.

Second, Experian asked the court to clarify that Berscheid could not pursue a cause of action related to her second dispute. The court confirmed that point because Experian deleted the debt from Berscheid’s credit report within 30 days after receiving the second dispute, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court therefore stated that Berscheid cannot seek liability from Experian for the second dispute.

Berscheid’s request

Berscheid argued that the earlier order wrongly concluded that Experian did not willfully violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law. She argued that willfulness should be decided by a jury. The court rejected her request for permission to seek reconsideration because her letter repeated arguments she had already made and did not show the compelling circumstances required by Local Rule 7.1(j). The court explained that the earlier order found no genuine dispute of material fact on willfulness because Berscheid had not presented enough evidence of a knowing and intentional violation.

Disposition

The court denied Experian’s request to file a motion to reconsider and denied Berscheid’s request to file a motion to reconsider. It also clarified, consistent with the earlier summary-judgment order, that Berscheid cannot seek liability from Experian for the second dispute.