Batra v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' filings and statements on the record, the Court holds that Defendant's motion to strike is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, as detailed below: As further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 3/26/2024) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RAJVIR BATRA,
Plaintiff,
v.

23-CV-6408 (DEH)

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.,

ORDER

Defendant.

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge:
On February 28, 2024, Defendant moved for a discovery conference to discuss its motion
to strike eight of Plaintiff’s 57 noticed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 30(b)(6)
deposition topics (“Topics”). ECF No. 32. Also on February 28, 2024, the parties filed a request
to extend all discovery deadlines. ECF No. 33. On March 5, 2024, the Court scheduled the
discovery conference to take place on March 14, 2024, and it granted the parties’ deadline
extension request. ECF Nos. 35, 37. On March 7, 2024, with Plaintiff’s consent, Defendant
filed a request to adjourn the discovery conference to a later date. ECF No. 38. The Court
granted that request, and the parties met before the Court on March 25, 2024. See ECF No. 39.
Having reviewed the parties’ filings and statements on the record, the Court holds that
Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, as detailed below:
•

Defendant’s motion to strike Topics 29 and 34 is DENIED. Relevance is a “low
threshold, easily satisfied.” United States v. Gramins, 939 F.3d 429, 450 (2d Cir.
2019). Costs and expenses related to Experian’s investigations are relevant to the
reasonableness of Experian’s actions. Plaintiff clears the relevance threshold, and
Defendant fails to demonstrate how a deposition on these topics would be overly
burdensome. On the record before the Court, Defendant raised concerns regarding
the difficulty of ascertaining the costs of any particular investigation conducted by
Experian. Defendant is advised that to meet its discovery obligations, it is not
required to generate information or reports that it does not already have.

•

Defendant’s motion to strike Topics 36 and 37 is DENIED. Testimony on the
manner in which Experian compensates its reinvestigation staff is relevant to the
reasonableness of Experian’s actions, and Defendant fails to demonstrate how a
deposition on these topics would be overly burdensome.

•

Defendant’s motion to strike Topics 47 and 56 is DENIED as moot. The parties
represented on the record before the Court that they will resolve these matters without
the Court’s intervention.

•

Defendant’s motion to strike Topic 48 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. The
parties are directed to meet and confer on this topic, given representations made on
the record by Plaintiff’s counsel’s that it will narrow this topic to address Defendant’s
concerns.

•

Defendant’s motion to strike Topic 55 is GRANTED. This topic inquires into
Experian’s communications with data furnishers regarding a district court decision
from the Eastern District of Virginia, which is not binding in this case. Plaintiff fails
to demonstrate that it is either relevant or proportional to the needs of this case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2024
New York, New York

DALE E. HO
United States District Judge

2