Roe v. American Databank, LLC

Filing 83

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Responses due July 30, 2014 at 5:30 p.m.. Signed by Judge Alsup on July 29, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

ASTRAILIA I. DUNFORD, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 13-03829 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN DATABANK LLC,

13

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

Defendant.
/

14
15

By JULY 30, 2014 AT 5:30 P.M., the parties shall file supplemental briefs on the

16

following issues:

17

1.

The typical fact pattern is that an employer or prospective employer orders a

18

consumer report on an employee or prospective employee. The report is sent to the employer.

19

Our fact pattern is different. Ms. Dunford ordered a report from American DataBank.

20

The report was emailed to Ms. Dunford. She then forwarded the report to San Diego City

21

College, who in turn shared it with various hospitals. In light of the fact that Ms. Dunford

22

(not American DataBank) shared the report with the recipients, shouldn’t she be deemed to have

23

made the disclosure? What authority allows her to bring claims under Sections

24

1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), 1681b(b)(1), and/or 1681c(a)(2) and (5)? How can she bring a claim when

25

she knew or should have known that her report contained the dismissed charges arising from the

26

same transaction as the convictions, but shared it anyway? Please address all relevant

27

authorities.

28

1
2

2.

Prior to 1998, Section 1681c(a)(5) stated (emphasis added):
. . . no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report
containing any of the following items of information: . . .

3
4

(5) Records of arrest, indictment, or conviction of crime which,
from date of disposition, release, or parole, antedate the report by
more than seven years.

5
Currently, the statute states (emphasis added):
6
7
8
9

. . . no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report
containing any of the following items of information: . . .
(2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that, from
date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until
the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the
longer period.

10

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

*

*

*

11
12

(5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records
of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than
seven years.

13
In other words, it appears that stale criminal information, including convictions, could not be
14
reported under the prior statute. Now, “records of convictions of crimes” may be reported.
15
What, if anything, does the legislative history state on this change? Is there any guidance on
16
how to construe “adverse item of information” or “records of convictions of crimes?”
17
18
Dated: July 29, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2