Rennick et al v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Filing 56

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Compel Discovery Responses; granting 47 Motion for an Order Authorizing Confidential Production of Documents of Third Party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 9/4/2018. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MICHELE MALVERTY, individually,
and as successor in interest for
JAMES C. RENNICK, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 8:17-cv-1617-T-27AAS

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC and EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER
The parties appeared for a hearing on Michele Malverty’s motion to compel
discovery responses from Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”). (Doc.
34). Experian opposed Ms. Malverty’s motion and advised that, because of continued
conferral, only interrogatory nos. 11 and 12 remain at issue. (Doc. 42). At the
hearing, Ms. Malverty’s counsel advised the court that he was withdrawing the
motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 11. In addition to hearing argument
on Ms. Malverty’s motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 12, the court
addressed Ms. Malverty and Equifax Information Services, LLC’s (“Equifax”) joint
motion for an order authorizing the confidential production of third-party documents
(Doc. 47) and scheduled the parties’ requested settlement conference.
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing:

1

(1)

Ms. Malverty and Equifax’s Joint Motion for an Order Authorizing

Confidential Production of Documents of Third Party James L. Palmer (Doc. 47) is
GRANTED.

This third-party information is subject to the highest level of

confidentiality available under the parties’ confidentiality agreement. In producing
this information, Equifax shall redact all but the last four digits of the account
numbers. If the documents are to be filed in this litigation, the confidentiality of the
documents are subject to the Locals Rules for the Middle District of Florida and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(2)

Ms. Malverty’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. 34) is

DENIED as follows:
a.

b.
(3)

As noted above, at the hearing, Ms. Malverty withdrew the
motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 11; thus,
the request is DENIED as moot; and
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 12 is
DENIED.

An order scheduling the settlement conference is entered separately.

(Doc. 55).
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 4, 2018.

2