Blogs

In Lynch v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2022 WL 190753 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2022), the district court affirmed a discovery order for production as to the accuracy of credit reporting procedures to remove debt discharged in bankruptcy (so called “bankruptcy scrubs”).

Plaintiffs alleged that the credit reporting agency continued to report a particular account as owing for more than one year after it was discharged in bankruptcy. Plaintiffs asserted this error violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as a negligent or willful failure to follow reasonable procedures intended to assure the accuracy of credit reporting for 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). In the case, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery. In his order, the magistrate judge granted and denied in part these requests. Experian objected on the grounds that certain production ordered was unduly burdensome, irrelevant, or duplicative.

The district court first addressed discovery ordered with respect to production of limited communications and documents from third-party data providers “containing precatory language about the reliability of the information provided.” The district court affirmed that the limited production was relevant as it alerted Experian to the potential unreliability of the data on which it based its reports.

The district court next examined the proportionality for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) of the discovery ordered limited to information that would allow an experienced attorney in FCRA to understand how Experian’s procedures worked to remove the debt discharged in the bankruptcy from the credit reporting. The district court was unpersuaded that the magistrate judge failed to assess the proportionality factors. In its analysis, the district court noted that the discovery order limited the production based on the burden on Experian and the time period relevant to the case. Notable, the district court rejected Experian’s arguments that the discovery had already been produced, or the case merits little discovery based on similarity to other cases. The district court also declined to assume the magistrate judge failed to apply the correct rules because he did not detail every aspect of his proportionality analysis in his written order.

The discovery order was affirmed.

Co-Editors in Chief
Karl J. Johnson, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
David M. Tanabe, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.