Koster v. Trans Union, LLC

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED. (Doc. No. 34.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff shall fully respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests at issue on before November 16, 2012. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion to bar Plaintiff's experts is DENIED. (Doc. No. 37.) In the event Plaintiff has not yet provided Defendant with da tes for deposing Plaintiff's experts, Plaintiff shall do so immediately, and shall make her expert's available prior to November 16, 2012, at Defendant's discretion. Defendant's alternative request to amend the Case Management Ord er shall be GRANTED to the extent that discovery deadlines and the deadlines for any Daubert motions shall be extended by two weeks. The trial date shall not be changed at this point. (Discovery Completion due by 11/29/2012.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 11/9/2012. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBIN KOSTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV00074 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.,
is before the Court on a discovery dispute between the parties. Plaintiff alleges in her
complaint that Defendant, a consumer reporting agency, failed to adopt and/or follow
reasonable procedures in preparing Plaintiff’s credit report, with the result that a “mixed
file,” containing information pertaining to other persons, was prepared and disseminated
by Defendant. She also alleges that in further violation of the Act, Defendant did not,
upon notice, reinvestigate and correct the false information in Plaintiff’s report. Plaintiff
seeks actual and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees.
In her motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond
to certain interrogatories and produce certain documents with respect to information
about Plaintiff, regardless of where it is stored in Defendant’s computer system, and to
produce documents with respect to “matching algorithms and mixed files” and
Defendant’s policies, procedures, and notice.

Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel was to file it’s own motion to
strike the motion to compel on the grounds that Plaintiff (1) refused to confer with
Defendant in good faith and make a sincere effort to resolve the discovery disputes prior
to filing the motion to compel, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and
Local Rule 3.04; and (2) failed to seek leave of Court prior to filing her 23-page
memorandum in support of the motion to compel, in violation of Local Rule 4.01.
Defendant only briefly addresses the merits of the motion to compel in a footnote,
maintaining that the discovery sought is not discoverable because the case really involves
an issue of identity theft and not a “mixed file.” (Doc. No. 35 at 1 n.1.) In their
responses and replies, the parties continued to exchange accusations regarding the good
or bad faith of each related to the discovery dispute.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “parties may obtain
discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense.” Under this Rule, “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if
the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” Fed. R. Civ P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of
showing that the requested documents are discoverable. See Central States, SE & SW
Areas Pension Fund v. King Dodge, Inc., No. 4:11MC00233 AGF, 2011 WL 2784118, at
*2 (E.D. Mo. July 15, 2011).
In general, the Federal Rules promote a “broad and liberal policy of discovery for
the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.”
In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here the Court finds
-2-

Defendant’s reasons for striking the motion to compel, and for opposing the discovery
sought, unpersuasive. Further, the requested answers and documents are relevant to the
allegations in the complaint. To the extent that Defendant may have confidentiality
concerns with regard to information about individuals other than Plaintiff, these concerns
can be addressed by an appropriate protective order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion
to compel is DENIED. (Doc. No. 34.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED.
(Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff shall fully respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests at issue on
before November 16, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to bar Plaintiff’s experts
is DENIED. (Doc. No. 37.) In the event Plaintiff has not yet provided Defendant with
dates for deposing Plaintiff’s experts, Plaintiff shall do so immediately, and shall make
her expert’s available prior to November 16, 2012, at Defendant’s discretion.
Defendant’s alternative request to amend the Case Management Order shall be
GRANTED to the extent that discovery deadlines and the deadlines for any Daubert
motions shall be extended by two weeks. The trial date shall not be changed at this point.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of November, 2012.

-3-