United States District Court, E.D. California
F. BRENNAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case was before the court on April 4, 2018, for hearing on
plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF
No. 123) and motion to compel defendant Equifax Information
Services, LLC (“Equifax”) to provide further
responses to plaintiff's Requests for Production of
Documents (ECF No. 138). Attorney Joseph Messer appeared on
behalf of plaintiff. Attorneys Zachary McEntyre and Matthew
Dawson appeared on behalf of defendant Equifax and attorney
Paul Levine appeared on behalf of defendants John McGinley
and Robert McGinley. As explained below, both motions are
granted in part and denied in part.
Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order
seeks to modify the court's scheduling order to extend
the deadlines for completing discovery, disclosing expert
witnesses, and filing dispositive motions. ECF No. 123. For
the reasons stated on the record, plaintiff's motion is
granted in part. All discovery shall be completed by July 16,
2018. Plaintiff's expert disclosure(s) shall be completed
by May 9, 2018, and defendants' expert disclosures shall
be completed by June 9, 2018. Plaintiff's request to extend
the date for filing dispositive motions is denied.
Motion to Compel
moves to compel defendant Equifax to provide further
responses to 17 requests for production of documents. For the
reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
overarching contention by Equifax in opposing this motion is
that plaintiff seeks information that is not relevant to the
claims at issue in this action. Thus, some review of the
complaint is warranted.
putative class action proceeds on plaintiff's second
amended complaint. ECF No. 132. Plaintiff asserts claims for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”)
against defendants Equifax; Geneva Financial Services, Inc.
(“Geneva Inc.”) and its officers Mark Hassan and
Robert McGinley; Geneva Motors, Inc. d/b/a Geneva Financial
Services (“Geneva Motors”) and its officers
Kamies Elhouty and John McGinley; and REBS Supply Inc. d/b/a/
REBS Marketing, Inc. (“REBS”) and its CEO, Andy
Mitchell. The crux of plaintiff's complaint is that
Equifax improperly furnished his and the proposed class
members' credit information to the other defendants, who
did not have a proper purpose for obtaining such information.
alleges that in February 2016, REBS, a marketing company,
submitted an order with Equifax for the purchase of “a
prescreened list of 10, 000 consumers residing around the
95618 zip code area, with credit scores of 530 to 600 who had
‘no open autos, no open repos' (hereafter
“Prescreened List”) for the purpose of a direct
marketing mailer which REBS was arranging for Hanlees Nissan
Chevrolet.” Id. ¶ 103. According to the
complaint, after defendant John McGinley, the Director of
Lending and Data Operations for Geneva Motors, inquired about
the status of REBS's order, Equifax confirmed that it
provided the Prescreened List to “Geneva, ” which
forwarded the list to REBS. Id. ¶¶
106-112, Ex. L.
thereafter, plaintiff received a mailed solicitation inviting
him to purchase a vehicle from Hanlees Nissan Chevrolet
(“Hanlees”) and purporting to “contain an
offer of credit from ‘Geneva Financial
Services.'” Id. ¶ 123. Plaintiff
alleges that the credit solicitation was mailed on behalf of
the dealership by defendant REBS using information obtained
from the Prescreened List. Id. ¶ 124. Plaintiff
subsequently submitted a loan application through the website
listed on the solicitation. Id. ¶ 130. He
alleges that the following week, he called the phone number
listed on the website to inquire about the status of his loan
application. Id. ¶ 132. A representative
informed plaintiff that the company did not finance vehicles
for purchase and that plaintiff would need to contact the
dealership. Id. ¶ 132. Notwithstanding that
representation, plaintiff eventually received a letter from
Geneva Financial Services stating that his “application
for an automotive refinance loan” was rejected due to
insufficient collateral. Id. ¶¶ 150-51,
154, Ex. Q. Accordingly, plaintiff claims that he was not
extended a firm offer of credit, and therefore defendants,
with the exception of Equifax, did not have a permissible
purpose for obtaining the prescreened list. Id.
Equifax, plaintiff alleges it knew the other defendants
requested the Prescreened List to use for a direct mail
marketing campaign for Hanlees and that they did not have a
have a permissible purpose for obtaining the Prescreened
List. Id. ¶¶ 143, 145, 162. He further
alleges that Equifax failed to maintain reasonable procedures
to ensure credit reports were not finished to other entities
lacking a permissible purpose for acquiring such information.
Id. ¶ 188.
also alleges that on other occasions Equifax has furnished
consumer reports to “Geneva Financial Services, ”
which has never had a permissible purpose for obtaining
consumer reports. Id. ¶ 206. Appended to the
second amended complaint are several credit solicitations,
similar to the one plaintiff received, each purporting to
extend a firm offer of credit from “Geneva Financial
Services.” Id. at Ex. R.
complaint alleges the following claims under the FCRA: (1)
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e against Equifax, Geneva
Inc., Geneva Motors, Hanssan, Elhouty, John McGinley, and
Robert McGinley; (2) violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b
against all defendants; and (3) violation of 15 U.S.C. §
1681q against REBS, Geneva Inc., Geneva Motors, Hassan,
Elhouty, and John and Robert McGinley.
seeks to assert these claims on behalf of himself and two
classes: the REBS class and the Geneva Class. Id. at
132. The complaint defines the REBS class as “[t]he ten
thousand (10, 000) persons ...