Smith v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-06960
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Smith v. Experian Information Solutions, Judge Broderick granted Experian’s request to pause discovery against it while the court considered arbitration.
Smith and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; discovery concerning Smith’s claims against EIS was paused while EIS’s motion to compel arbitration was pending.
What happened
In Smith v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Experian Information Solutions asked the court to pause discovery concerning the claims against it while the court considered Experian’s request to send those claims to arbitration.
Experian argued that Smith had agreed to an arbitration clause when enrolling in its CreditWorks product. Experian also argued that pausing discovery would avoid unnecessary litigation costs and would not harm Smith because discovery could occur under the arbitration rules if arbitration were required. The filing states that Smith did not oppose the request to compel arbitration but did not agree to pause discovery.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Experian’s application and stayed discovery concerning the claims against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. until the court resolved Experian’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06960
- Vernon Broderick
- June 6, 2023
Background
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (EIS) filed a letter motion asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery concerning Smith’s claims against EIS. EIS asked for the stay while the court considered EIS’s separate motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.
The filing states that Smith enrolled in CreditWorks, an online credit-monitoring product provided by EIS’s affiliate, ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., on July 23, 2021. EIS asserted that Smith accepted terms containing an arbitration agreement covering disputes relating to the CreditWorks membership and extending to affiliates such as EIS. EIS also stated that Smith did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration, although Smith did not consent to pausing discovery.
Arguments on the Discovery Stay
EIS argued that courts generally may pause discovery for good cause while deciding a motion to compel arbitration. It maintained that its arbitration motion was supported by substantial arguments, including the arbitration clause, and that proceeding with discovery could force EIS to incur unnecessary costs before the court decided whether the dispute belonged in arbitration. EIS also pointed to the approaching June 20, 2023 fact-discovery and deposition deadline.
EIS further argued that Smith would not be prejudiced by a pause because, if arbitration were required, discovery would be governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association. If arbitration were not required, EIS argued, any delay would be brief and would allow the court to determine what discovery was appropriate.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted EIS’s application. The court stayed discovery as to Smith’s claims against EIS pending resolution of EIS’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. The provided opinion text does not state the court’s separate ruling on the motion to compel arbitration itself.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.