Batra v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-06408
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Batra v. Experian, Judge Ho denied in part and granted in part Experian’s motion to strike deposition topics.
Rajvir Batra and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., particularly their discovery obligations and the scope of Batra’s planned Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
What happened
In Batra v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Experian asked the court to strike eight topics from Rajvir Batra’s planned deposition of an Experian representative under Rule 30(b)(6). The parties also extended their discovery deadlines.
The court denied the request for Topics 29, 34, 36, and 37, finding those topics relevant and not shown to be overly burdensome. It denied the request for Topics 47 and 56 as moot because the parties said they would resolve those issues themselves. It denied the request for Topic 48 without prejudice to renewal after the parties meet and confer, and granted the request for Topic 55 because Batra had not shown that the topic was relevant or proportional.
Judge Dale E. Ho ruled that Experian’s motion to strike was denied in part and granted in part, as specified in the order.
The detailed version
- Batra v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06408
- Ho
- Mar. 26, 2024
Background
Experian moved for a discovery conference about its request to strike eight of the 57 topics that Rajvir Batra noticed for a deposition of an Experian representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The parties also requested an extension of all discovery deadlines, which the court granted. After the discovery conference, the court ruled on the motion to strike.
Rulings on the Deposition Topics
- Topics 29 and 34: The court denied the motion to strike. It held that costs and expenses connected to Experian’s investigations were relevant to whether Experian acted reasonably. Experian had not shown that a deposition on these topics would be overly burdensome. The court also stated that Experian need not create information or reports it does not already have to meet its discovery obligations. - Topics 36 and 37: The court denied the motion to strike. Testimony about how Experian compensates employees who conduct reinvestigations was relevant to whether Experian acted reasonably, and Experian had not shown that the deposition would be overly burdensome. - Topics 47 and 56: The court denied the motion to strike as moot because the parties represented that they would resolve these matters without the court’s intervention. - Topic 48: The court denied the motion to strike without prejudice to renewal. The parties were directed to meet and confer because Batra’s counsel represented that Batra would narrow the topic to address Experian’s concerns. - Topic 55: The court granted the motion to strike. The topic concerned Experian’s communications with data furnishers about a decision from the Eastern District of Virginia. The court found that the decision was not binding in this case and that Batra had not shown the topic was relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.
Disposition
The court held that Experian’s motion to strike was denied in part and granted in part, with the separate dispositions described above. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case; it addressed discovery disputes concerning the proposed deposition topics.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.