Malichi v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al

Filing 32

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Order, Defendant Experian's motion to compel, see ECF No. 31 , is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the deadlines in the accompanying Order. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 5/9/2024. (RCM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JONATHAN MALICHI,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
23-CV-08628 (HG)

v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
et al.
Defendants.
HECTOR GONZALEZ, United States District Judge:
This is a Fair Credit Reporting Act case. On March 27, 2024, Defendant Experian served
a deficiency letter on Plaintiff, identifying certain alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff’s interrogatory
responses and document productions. See ECF No. 31 at 2. On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff and
Experian met and conferred about the alleged deficiencies and Plaintiff agreed to provide a
response by April 19, 2024. Id. In addition, Experian informed Plaintiff that it “did not have a
dispute letter from Plaintiff in its files relating to Plaintiff’s dispute.” Id. Following the meet
and confer, on April 8, 2024, Experian “confirm[ed] that it did not have a dispute letter.” Id.
(The Court understands “dispute letter” to refer to the letter a consumer may send to a credit
bureau to dispute “the completeness or accuracy of any item of information” in the consumer’s
credit file. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).) After receiving that confirmation, Plaintiff “offered
to voluntarily dismiss the case,” but Experian did not agree to the dismissal as it awaited
responses to third-party subpoenas. ECF No. 31 at 2. Apparently referring to his request to
voluntarily dismiss the case, “Plaintiff told Experian that he will hold off from further discovery
until such time as this issue could be sorted.” Id.
Plaintiff’s position is, to say the least, perplexing. If Plaintiff wants to dismiss this case
and Experian will not agree to do so under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), he can still seek dismissal under

Rule 41(a)(2). 1 But under no circumstances may he decide—unilaterally or otherwise—to “hold
off” on meeting his discovery obligations. “Such compliance is not optional or negotiable.” See
Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd., 880 F.3d 620, 631 (2d Cir. 2018).
Experian now seeks an order compelling Plaintiff “to provide adequate and complete
responses to Experian’s deficiency letter, including making supplemental productions.” ECF
No. 31 at 2. Experian seeks relief specifically with respect to Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8–9, 12–13, and 17 of
its First Set of Interrogatories; Nos. 3, 5, 12, 14, 16, 30, 34–38, 41–42, 45, and 48–49 of its First
Set of Requests for Production; and its entire Second Set of Interrogatories. See id. at 2–3. For
the first two categories of documents, the Court has reviewed Experian’s deficiency letter, see
ECF No. 31-1, as well as each of the at-issue interrogatories and document requests.
On the whole, Plaintiff’s responses to the first two categories of discovery requests noted
above, which seek information that is plainly responsive and relevant, are woefully deficient.
Further, Plaintiff’s objections contravene the basic principle that “[p]at, generic, boilerplate, and
non-specific objections will not suffice.” See In re Air Crash Near Clarence Ctr., New York, on
Feb. 12, 2009, 277 F.R.D. 251, 254 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). As such, the issues raised in Experian’s
deficiency letter are well taken. Pursuant to Rule 37, Plaintiff is ordered to revise and/or
supplement his responses and productions in response to Experian’s deficiency letter, in
accordance with the limitations on scope agreed to by Experian both in its deficiency letter as
well as in the joint status update to the Court, on or before May 24, 2024. With respect to
Experian’s Second Set of Interrogatories, which the Court has also reviewed, Plaintiff is ordered
to respond either by any deadline agreed to with Experian, or by May 17, 2024, whichever is
earlier.
1

In this vein, the Court does not appreciate Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference.
As Plaintiff must be aware, Magistrate Judge Henry is already scheduling just that. See Apr. 23,
2024, Text Order; ECF No. 29.
2

The Court notes that fact discovery is scheduled to end on May 31, 2024, and the Court
previously warned the parties that “[n]o further extensions of the parties’ time to complete
discovery will be granted in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.” See Mar. 21, 2024,
Text Order. That warning continues to apply, and in view of the foregoing, Plaintiff must
proceed expeditiously. The Court further warns Plaintiff that failure to comply with his
discovery obligations, including as specified in this Order, may result in sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Hector Gonzalez
HECTOR GONZALEZ
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
May 9, 2024

3