Wilson v. Corelogic Saferent, LLC

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 78 LETTER MOTION to Compel and for Protective Order addressed to Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis from Timothy J. St. George dated April 29, 2016 filed by Corelogic Saferent, LLC. IT IS HEREBY ORDE RED THAT (1) SafeRent's motion to compel Wilson to produce non-public documents pertaining to the Queens County Action is DENIED; (2) SafeRent's motion for a protective order prohibiting Rule 30(b)(6) questioning regarding SafeRent's m atching criteria (Topic No. 12) is GRANTED; (3)SafeRent's motion for a protective order prohibiting Rule 30(b)(6) questioning regarding SafeRent's dispute-handling processes (Topic. No. 14) and the software used to track disputes (Topic No. 15) is DENIED; and (4) All discovery shall be completed by June 24, 2016. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Discovery due by 6/24/2016.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 5/23/2016) (kko) Modified on 5/24/2016 (kko).

Ii

HusncsDNY
11.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AHDULLAH JAMES GEORGE WILSON,

I DOCUMENT

l ELECTRONIC.t\LLY

Plaintiff,

- ·~

1jDOC#:_..
11
.. DA·1·1~ 1-"l .c: J : -·---) u.
!! _ : r· .; er' !:.J - "' .
r;;>(

~I

11··

FTLED~t

{.. _

1

-, ..... 1· "' _

~

..

~·~-:---~--:

MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

- against 14-CV-2477 (JPO) (RLE)
CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC

.
-------------------91
Defendant.

RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Abdullah James George Wilson ("Wilson") brings this action, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, against CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC ("SafeRent"),
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x ("FCRA") and the
New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus.§ 380 et seq. ("NY-FCRA"). (Doc. No. 2.)
This case was referred to the undersigned for general pretrial. (Doc. No. 33.) Following an April
26, 2016 status conference, SafeRent filed a letter-motion (1) to compel Wilson to produce
documents, and (2) for a protective order with respect to information that Wilson seeks to obtain
through a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b )(6) deposition of SafeRent' s corporate
representative. (Doc. No. 78.) For the following reasons, SafeRent's motion is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.

II.BACKGROUND
Wilson's Complaint alleges that SafeRent, a nationwide consumer reporting agency,
"reported unlawful and inaccurate information" to a leasing agent after Wilson was offered a
lease on an apartment in the Bronx, New York. (Doc. No. 2.) Wilson claims that SafeRent
violated NY-FCRA by disclosing his race, and violated FCRA by reporting that he had been

·

convicted of felony robbery in 1995 when, in fact, the conviction had been vacated and the

charges dismissed and sealed in 2009. (Id. at i[ 20-21.) Wilson was notified that his annllcation
for the apartment had not been approved based on the information contained in SafeRent's
report. (Id

at~

23.) Wilson alleges that he attempted to dispute the inaccurate information

contained in the report by contacting SafeRent, but the messages he left on SafeRent' s automated
telephone system were never returned. (Id.

at~

24.) He claims that as a result of SafeRent's

actions, he suffered actual damages including, but not limited to, "loss of opportunity for
housing, damage to reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, and other mental, physical, and
emotional distress." (Id

at~

53.)

Wilson's Complaint also makes class action allegations under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Complaint defines two classes as "all consumers" as to whom
SafeRent: (1) "reported or maintained in its files the race of the consumers" (residents of the
State of New York only); and (2) "reported a public record or criminal record that had been
expunged, vacated, sealed, or dismissed prior to the date of the report in connection with an
application for a residential lease or tenancy, employment or credit." (Id.

at~

25.)

III. DISCUSSION
A. SafeRent's Motion to Compel

In 2012, Wilson sued the City of New York and city officials involved with the arrest and
prosecution of the now-vacated robbery offense in New York Supreme Court, Queens County
("Queens County Action"), alleging damages arising from his wrongful conviction. SafeRent
seeks documents connected to the Queens County Action that have not been publically filed,
including transcripts of Wilson's deposition and his written discovery responses. (Doc. No. 78.)

2

Under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the scope of discovery is

limited to "nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and nrnnortional
to the needs of the case," where "the burden of the proposed discovery" is not "outweigh[ed] [by]
its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l). SafeRent argues that the Queens County Action
discovery is relevant to Wilson's current damages claims "[b ]ecause the state court action
concerned the criminal conviction at issue here, [and] it likely explored issues relating to the
efforts to have the underlying conviction reversed and sealed. The same issues are present here."
(Doc. No. 78.)
Wilson argues in opposition that the Queens County Action materials are irrelevant to his
claims in the present action because "not only are the defendants different, but the claims pursued
... in that case are completed different from the ones asserted here." (Doc. No. 79.) His "efforts to
have the underlying conviction reversed and sealed" are not material to the current case because it
is "undisputed" that "the conviction was sealed and vacated at the time of [SafeRent's] report."
(Id.) Moreover, he asserts that because neither he nor his counsel in this case have the deposition

transcripts or written discovery in their possession, "the time, expense, and effort that would be
necessary" to obtain and review them "is not proportional to the needs of the case and
substantially outweighs their "minimal relevance." (Id.)
The Court finds that Safe Rent has not demonstrated the relevance of the Queens County
Action discovery to Wilson's claims in this case. Wilson's damages in his case against SafeRent
would be limited to those caused by SafeRent's actions with respect to reporting the vacated
conviction. Although both lawsuits relate to the collateral consequences of Wilson's felony
conviction, SafeRent' s allegation that the discovery material would contain any information
relevant to Wilson's claim for damages here is, at best, speculative. SafeRent has not provided

3

any basis for its contention that Wilson would have produced any information relevant to those

damages to the City of New York within the context of the Queens County Action. Accordin~ly,
SafeRent's motion to compel is DENIED.
B. SafeRent's Motion for Protective Order

SafeRent also moves for a protective order to avoid giving testimony on two topics during
Wilson's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition of its corporate representative. The
first, Topic No. 12, seeks testimony on "SafeRent's matching criteria for including adverse
criminal or public record information on a consumer report." (Doc. No. 78, Ex. A.) SafeRent
argues that its matching criteria-the "proprietary" process by which SafeRent "matches" public
records to individuals' identifying information-is not relevant to Wilson's claim that SafeRent
improperly reported a felony conviction that belonged to him, but was later vacated. (Doc. No.
78.) SafeRent also argues that it is not relevant to the putative class definition as pled, which
includes "all consumers ... as to whom [SafeRent] ... reported a public record or criminal record
that had been expunged, vacated, sealed, or dismissed prior to the date of the report[.]" (Id)
Wilson argues that he is entitled to information about the matching process because SafeRent's
"procedures came up lacking when it improperly reported a sealed and vacated conviction." (Doc.
No. 79.) The Court agrees with SafeRent that the matching criteria does not appear to be relevant
to Wilson's present claim, where he does not contest that the conviction was mismatched to his
identity, but rather that the conviction was reported after it had been vacated. Accordingly,
SafeRent's motion for a protective order with respect to Topic. No. 12 is GRANTED.
The second topic at issue, Topic No. 14, seeks testimony regarding "[t]he protocol,
procedures, and processes [SafeRent] utilizes for addressing consumer disputes relating [to] the
consumer reports it generates and issues." (Doc. No. 78, Ex. A.) SafeRent also objects to the

4

substance of Topic No. 15, which seeks "[t]he databases, servers, systems, and software used by

SafeRent to process and track consumer disputes relating [to 1the consumer renorts 1t {!enerates_"
(Id).

SafeRent argues that these deposition topics are overbroad in that they seek "information
regarding the processes used to handle the disputes of third-party consumers, whereas the claims
in this action that implicate SafeRent' s dispute processes ... have been pled only on an individual
basis." (Doc. No. 78.) SafeRent contends that its representative should only be required to discuss
"the procedures that were applied with respect to Plaintiff's communications with SafeRent about
the record at issue, but not with respect to any other consumer." (Id)
In opposition, Wilson argues that he is entitled to discovery on the procedures because if
the evidence shows that SafeRent failed to follow its own policies, or adopted policies that
recklessly disregarded the rights of consumers, Wilson could prove that its actions were negligent
and willful under sections 1681 n and 1681 o of the FCRA, an essential element of the class claim.
(Doc. No. 79.) The Court agrees that this information is relevant to the class claim. The Court
further notes that SafeRent's dispute processes are also relevant to Wilson's individual claim that
SafeRent violated 15 U.S.C. § 168li(a) by failing to conduct a "reasonabl[e]" reinvestigation into
the disputed conviction. (See Doc. No. 1 at~ 52.) Evidence of SafeRent's procedures for
resolving disputes in general bears on the reasonableness of SafeRent's actions with respect to
Wilson. As SafeRent does not allege that this testimony would be burdensome to provide, its
motion for a protective order with respect to Topic. Nos. 14 and 15 is DENIED.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

( 1) SafeRent' s motion to compel Wilson to produce non-public documents pertaining to
the Queens County Action is DENIED;

5

(2) SafeRent's motion for a protective order prohibiting Rule 30(b )(6) questioning
regarding SafeRent's matching criteria (Topic No. 12) is GRANTED;
(J J ~ateKencs

motion tor a protective order prohibiting Rule 30(b)(6) questioning
regarding SafeRent's dispute-handling processes (Topic. No. 14) and the software
used to track disputes (Topic No. 15) is DENIED; and

(4) All discovery shall be completed by June 24, 2016.

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of May 2016
New York, New York

The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge

6