Fox v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01197
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICK D. FOX No. 1:22-cv-1197-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and TRANS UNION, 15 LLC, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Rick Fox’s motion to enforce a subpoena as to nonparty 19 Dublin Automotive Group (“Dublin”) and to order Dublin to show cause why it should not be 20 held in contempt. ECF No. 76. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is granted. 21 Procedural History 22 This subpoena enforcement motion is related to an underlying action in which Fox is 23 suing Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) and Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”). 24 See ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that in July 2022, Plaintiff’s wife needed a new car. Id. at 25 ⁋ 18. When reviewing his credit scores in anticipation of the purchase, Plaintiff discovered that 26 each Defendant was unable to calculate his credit score. Id. at ¶¶ 19-22, 30-31. This was because 27 in both reports, a Discover Card account listed him as dead as of July 2022, despite the reports 28 also showing that he paid the July and August 2022 balances on time. Id. at ⁋⁋ 25-28, 34-37. 1 The Complaint further alleges that on August 15, 2022, Experian told Plaintiff that it had 2 corrected the error. Id. at ⁋ 46. Plaintiff assumed Experian had shared this with Trans Union, and 3 that Trans Union had therefore also corrected the error. Id. at ⁋ 47. He then applied for 4 automobile loans from five non-parties, including Turlock Chrysler. Id. at ¶ 49. All five denied 5 his application after reviewing copies of his consumer reports from both Defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 50- 6 52. The Complaint alleges this is because the consumer reports still listed him as deceased, and 7 Defendants never contacted the lenders to correct the error. Id. at ¶¶ 53-54. 8 Plaintiff obtained a letter from the Social Security Administration verifying he was not 9 deceased. Id. at ⁋ 55. He sent it to Experian on August 16, 2022 along with other “proof of life.” 10 Id. at ⁋ 56. On August 18, Experian demanded a notarized letter affirming his identity. Id. at ⁋ 11 57. 12 The Complaint alleges that as of its filing, neither Defendant had updated its records to 13 reflect that Plaintiff is not deceased. Id. at ⁋⁋ 58-59. Based on this failure, the Complaint asserts 14 that Defendants violated their duty under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and California Civil Code § 15 1785.14 to “maintain reasonable procedures to ensure that they compile and disburse consumer 16 information with maximal accuracy.” Id. at ¶¶ 72-73, 97-98. The Complaint also cites 17 Defendants’ duty, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, to “conduct a reasonable investigation” into 18 consumer complaints of inaccurate information, and to forward the dispute to the furnisher of that 19 information within five days. Id. at ¶¶ 84-88. 20 The current motion alleges that Dublin is Turlock Chrysler’s parent company. ECF No. 21 76 at 3-4. The subpoena at issue, served on December 31, 2024, required Dublin to produce 22 documents by January 10, 2025 and appear for a deposition on January 13, 2025. ECF Nos. 76-2 23 at 1, 76-3 at 1. Dublin did not produce the requested documents, appear for the deposition, or 24 contact Plaintiff’s counsel about the subpoena. ECF Nos. 76-4, 76-5 at ¶¶ 6-8. 25 Analysis 26 A. Motion to Compel 27 A subpoena may command a non-party to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition. Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 45(c)(1). It may also command the non-party to produce “documents, electronically 1 stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is 2 employed, or regularly transacts business in person[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A). Objections to 3 a subpoena for production of documents or tangible things must be served within the earlier of 14 4 days or the deadline for compliance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). 5 The subpoena was served on December 31, 2024 and required Dublin to produce 6 documents by January 10, 2025 and appear for a deposition on January 13, 2025. ECF Nos. 76-2 7 at 1, 76-3 at 1. Because January 10 was “the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 8 days after the subpoena [was] served,” that date was the deadline for objections. ECF No. 76-2 at 9 1. As of this order, Dublin has not filed objections. If Dublin believed the requested documents 10 irrelevant or a ten-day compliance deadline too onerous, it should have filed objections to that 11 effect. 12 In any event, any argument that the requested information was irrelevant to the current 13 action would likely lack merit. The subpoenaed documents included (1) any documents related to 14 any credit application Plaintiff submitted from January 2021 thereafter, (2) any records of 15 payments Dublin paid or should have paid for his Experian consumer reports, (3) any documents 16 used to process or evaluate Plaintiff’s August 2022 application, (4) any documents evidencing 17 Dublin’s denial of the application or reasons for such denial, (5) consumer or credit reports 18 reviewed for such application, (6) any communications with Plaintiff since January 2021 and 19 attachments thereto, (7) any communications since January 2021 between Dublin and Experian 20 about Plaintiff or his consumer report, and (8) any documents that Experian has provided about 21 Plaintiff or his credit application since January 2021. ECF No. 76-2 at 10-11. The subpoena 22 asserted that questions during Dublin’s deposition would concern the August 2022 credit 23 application, the evaluation thereof, relevant requests for Plaintiff’s consumer report, said reports 24 and amounts paid to Experian for them, policies for reviewing such reports, and any 25 communications between employees or with consumer reporting agencies about Plaintiff, his 26 credit application, or his consumer reports. ECF No. 76-2 at 18-19. The Complaint alleges that 27 Experian’s failure to amend Plaintiff’s consumer report to show that he was not deceased caused 28 Dublin’s subsidiary to deny his credit application. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 49-54. The requested 1 documents may help establish whether Dublin relied on the report’s assertion that Plaintiff was 2 deceased. 3 On the record before it, the Court finds that Dublin’s failure to comply with, or even 4 respond to, the subpoena lacks justification. The Court grants the motion to compel production of 5 the requested documents and appearance for a deposition. 6 B. Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt 7 A court “may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate 8 excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). Contempt sanctions 9 can include deposition attendance fees and attorney’s fees. LHF Prods. v. Doe, Case No. 3:16- 10 CV-00716-AC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145971, at *5 (D. Or. Oct. 21, 2016) (citing PaineWebber 11 Inc. v. Acstar Ins. Co., 211 F.R.D. 247, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Corder v. Howard Johnson & Co., 12 53 F.3d 225, 232 (9th Cir. 1994)). 13 Dublin was served on December 31, 2024. ECF No. 76-3. Dublin has not filed objections 14 to the subpoena or otherwise contacted Plaintiff about it. ECF No. 76-5 at ¶¶ 6-8. As discussed 15 above, any efforts to contest the relevance of requested documents would likely fail. See supra. 16 The Court orders Dublin to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of this order, as why it should 17 not be held in contempt for its failure to comply with or even respond to the subpoena. 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Dublin’s compliance with the subpoena served 20 on December 31, 2024. Within fourteen (14) days of this order, Dublin is ordered to: 21 1. Produce to Plaintiff the documents identified in the subpoena (ECF No. 76-2 at 10- 22 11); 23 2. Schedule with Plaintiff and appear for a deposition on the topics identified in the 24 subpoena (Id. at 18-19); 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 1 3. File a brief with this Court explaining why the Court should not hold Dublin in 2 contempt for failure to timely respond to this subpoena, or award Plaintiff attorney’s 3 fees and deposition attendance fees. 4 | DATED: January 29, 2025 . fonfote 6 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28