Anderson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Filing 73

ORDER: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Clerk shall reopenDefendant's Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Evan Hendricks (Doc. 38). This motion is now under advisement. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 1/10/18. (hw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELA ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-2038-JAR

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER
On August 3, 2017, this Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all
three Fair Credit Reporting Act violations asserted in the Complaint.1 The Court granted
summary judgment on two of the three claims on the basis that they were barred by the statute of
limitations. On November 13, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider its
decision to grant Defendant summary judgment on those two claims, concluding they are not
time-barred.2 In its original summary judgment order, the Court denied as moot a then-pending
motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, Evan Hendricks, under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert.
Given the Court’s decision on reconsideration to deny Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on the maximum possible accuracy and reasonable reinvestigation claims, this Court
directs the Clerk to reopen Defendant’s Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Plaintiff’s
Expert, Evan Hendricks (Doc. 38).
At the pretrial conference, Defendant requested that the Court set the motion to exclude
matter for an evidentiary hearing. As requested by the Court, Defendant addressed this request

1

Doc. 49.

2

Doc. 64.

in a December 21, 2017 filing.3 It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine how to
perform its gatekeeping function under Daubert.4 The most common method for fulfilling this
function is a Daubert hearing, although such a process is not specifically mandated.5 The Court
has carefully reviewed Defendant’s December 21 filing, and the submissions filed with the
motions, which include deposition testimony by this expert, and concludes these materials create
a more-than adequate record upon which to decide the issues raised in Defendant’s motion to
exclude. Therefore, Defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing on its renewed motion to
exclude is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Clerk shall reopen
Defendant’s Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert, Evan Hendricks
(Doc. 38). This motion is now under advisement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2018
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Doc. 72.

4

Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R., 215 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir. 2000).

5

Id.

2