OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Postby Administrator » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:30 pm

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Attachments
duckworth.v.CHOICEPOINT.OPPOSITION.protective.order.pdf
(95.34 KiB) Downloaded 145 times
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Re: OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Postby Administrator » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:33 pm

in Zahran v. Trans Union Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WestLaw 31010822 [U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. 2002], plaintiffs brought action against the credit reporting agencies alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. One credit reporting agency moved for protective order and requested that certain exhibits [manuals] be filed under seal. The District Court, Judge Keys, held that neither the credit reporting agency's consumer relations policies in its handbook, or its subscriber agreements with creditors qualified as trade secrets or other confidential information, precluding issuance of protective order for those documents. The motion was denied. In Zahran v. Trans Union Corp., supra, the court shot down Trans Union’s bizarre hacker proposition and deemed it unrealistic. Yet, this is the problem we repeatedly face. The agencies seek to prevent access to records and hinder discovery to a great degree. Also, see and consider Deborah Moore v. CSC Credit Services, Inc., Civil Docket No. 2:02-CV-303 [U.S.D.C. E.D. Tex. 1/13/2004] [Judge Ward sanctioned Equifax (the mother company of this defendant) for multiple discovery abuses, including withholding documents and asserting baseless privilege objections]; Deandrade v. Trans Union, 2005 WestLaw 3367048 [U.S.D.C. R.I. 7/19/2005].
In yet another case where a credit reporting agency stymied discovery through claims of confidentiality, Carol Mixon v. Experian, et al, cause no. 2:99CV00092 [U.S.D.C. E.D. Tex.], Magistrate-Judge McKee forced Experian to produce its records and refused to permit the charade to proceed. At one point Judge McKee ordered Experian to open its facility doors and permit an intensive search of the facility for records that had been concealed. Miraculously, the records were produced. Comparably, in Michael Nagle v. Experian, cause no. CV-99-J-3297-S [U.S.D.C. N.D. Ala.], Judge Inge Johnson held that the Experian’s Administrative Report [of Michael Nagle] would be produced absent any confidentiality designation. Judge Johnson also rejected arguments to throw a blanket of confidentiality over other Experian procedures and policy manuals. She found that the documents at issue simply do not warrant extraordinary protection and non-disclosure from the public. There was no secretive formula or set of data.
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association


Return to “Discovery: Interrogatories, Requests For Production of Documents, Requests to Inspect, Requests For Admissions, Deposition Notices, Subpoenas, Deposit”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests