XPN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Names, Types, Descriptions, Testimony
David A. Szwak

XPN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Postby David A. Szwak » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:04 pm

Vidal v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 281200, E.D.Pa., Feb 03, 2005

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2005, upon consideration of defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s ("Experian") motion for protective order (Docket No. 16), plaintiff's opposition thereto, defendant's reply, and after oral argument held on February 1, 2005, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the protective order submitted to the Court with the motion.

Experian has requested a protective order to maintain the confidentiality of four categories of documents: the administrative report; the dispute response log; the disclosure request log; and, the transaction log. Experian concedes that they are discoverable but asks the Court to order that they be kept confidential during this litigation, used only for purposes of this litigation, and returned at the end of the litigation.
Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c), "for good cause shown," the Court may issue a protective order that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or revealed only in a designated way." Experian has filed an affidavit of a Consumer Affairs Specialist in its National Consumer Assistance Center in support of the motion. The affidavit establishes to the Court's satisfaction that certain information in these documents is a trade secret and should remain confidential. These documents were created in response to this lawsuit to investigate the plaintiff's claim. They relate to the plaintiff but contain certain confidential codes that a competitor could use to reverse-engineer the design of Experian's System. The affidavit is fourteen pages in length and with specific detail explains the documents and why they contain proprietary information.

The plaintiff argues that the Court should not grant the motion because documents of the type at issue here were produced in another case without a protective order. In that case, a junior lawyer representing Experian handed over in discovery documents that would fall into two of the categories at issue here. Experian moved for a protective order with respect to documents in the other categories at issue here. The court denied that motion.

The plaintiff argues that because those documents were produced in that case, nothing would be gained by granting the protective order because the codes are already in the public domain. Counsel for Experian argued persuasively that it is not the disclosure of one document that would allow the reverse-engineering but the discovery of many documents of this type. The more documents that become publicly available, the easier it would be to reverse-engineer Experian's System. This fact is also reflected in the affidavit. See ¶¶ 48, 49.

The plaintiff's main objection to the protective order appears to be that in some cases, it would present a large burden to plaintiff's counsel. Counsel for the plaintiff complained that in some cases, documents are not produced for a month or more while the parties try to negotiate a protective order. He complained that having such an order would be difficult if the plaintiff were pro se.

The Court can appreciate the concerns raised by the plaintiff's counsel but the Court cannot make a decision in this case based on the conduct of defense counsel in other cases. In this case, Experian has already produced a large number of documents without any claim of confidentiality. It is only those documents that fit within these four categories that they have withheld. Whether or not a protective order should be issued in any given case depends on the circumstances of that case. If, indeed, more of these documents become part of the public domain, it may be that Experian is not competitively disadvantaged by the disclosure of a few more. But in this case, the Court is convinced that there would be a competitive disadvantage to Experian if these documents were in the public domain.

The Court is also persuaded that Experian has diligently maintained the confidentiality of the documents. The main argument made by the plaintiff on this issue is that an affiliate of Experian, CBA, had given documents of this type in discovery. Experian presented to the Court the agreement under which CBA should have been protecting those documents and assured the Court that it is taking action to determine whether or not CBA has been producing such documents.

A final concern voiced by the plaintiff was that counsel did not want to be in the position of being charged with violating the protective order if he or someone on his staff inadvertently fails to file a confidential document under seal. But there is nothing in the proposed protective order that would allow such a claim for an inadvertent disclosure. The Court has handled many cases with a protective order in place. If someone by mistake fails to file a confidential document under seal, the document is placed under seal once the party realizes the mistake. There would be no penalty for such an inadvertent disclosure.

E.D.Pa.,2005.
Vidal v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 281200 (E.D.Pa.)

David A. Szwak

Admin and 7X Reports

Postby David A. Szwak » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:16 pm

The Admin and 7X reports show exactly how the identifiers were reported via the cross reference table. The specifics of the cross reference table and the features of the Admin and 7X reports were the subject of a prior motion to compel in which plaintiff, Carol Mixon, cited supra in footnote 6 as well, prevailed before Magistrate-Judge McKee. Counsels in Mixon, respectively as to plaintiff and Experian, are the same as this case. Thus, this Honorable Court has previously ordered production of these reports in Mixon. Filed in the Mixon record is a detailed explanation of how the Admin and 7X reports appear and why these reports are important. Counsel will re-file those papers if it pleases the court.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:21 pm

That Plaintiff also seeks the production of all Administrative reports and 7X reports maintained by defendant which pertain to plaintiff and which pertain to other data files which Experian have continually mixed and blended with plaintiff’s credit data. That these are ordinary business records at Experian although they are maintained in computerized form as opposed to hard copy form. That these reports and the underlying data are kept and maintained [and archived] in the ordinary course of business at Experian and Experian refuses to produce these records absent a court order. That Experian claims that the archived credit data reported to Experian about plaintiff is somehow a trade secret of Experian and warrants confidentiality. That Plaintiff can show that this data is compiled and kept in the ordinary course of business and what Experian really seeks to do is prevent the use of these detailed, archived reports to show a pattern and practice and systemic problem at Experian which would justify the imposition of punitive damages for willfulness. That, as in many other cases, Experian opts instead to defend one case at a time and seek to throw a blanket of confidentiality across all of the credit files in their system, as well as their procedures and policies.

That Plaintiff’s own credit data is not confidential as to plaintiff and her attorneys. That Plaintiff needs to be able to know and show what specific identifiers were reported to Experian by the respective furnishers who have been listed on credit reports Experian published about plaintiff. That, if allowed, Plaintiff will show that furnishers who reported totally different personal identifiers on various accounts had their account reportings misplaced, repeatedly and before and after disputes were lodged by plaintiff, in credit reports and credit files pertaining to plaintiff. That, at one point Experian’s counsel suggested that Experian cannot tell how these accounts were reported in terms of identifiers. That the Admin and 7X reports show exactly how the identifiers were reported via the cross reference table. That the specifics of the cross reference table and the features of the Admin and 7X reports were the subject of a prior motion to compel in which plaintiff, in Carol Mixon v. Equifax, et al, prevailed before Magistrate-Judge McKee. That counsels in Mixon, respectively as to plaintiff and Experian, are the same as this case. That this Honorable Court has previously ordered production of these reports in Mixon. That filed in the Mixon record is a detailed explanation of how the Admin and 7X reports appear and why these reports are important. That he will re-file those papers if it pleases the court. That Experian is trying to stall discovery since delaying and impending deadlines benefit them. That he is also awaiting available dates from Experian’s counsel to depose several employees who actually handled the transactions and events underlying the allegations in the complaint, i.e, plaintiff’s disputes to Experian and the alleged reinvestigations Experian claims it performed.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:31 pm

Again, both the computer database information and records, as well as the underlying documents supporting the computer entries are discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 34[a]; Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376, 1382 [7th Cir. 1993]; Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1053 [U.S.D.C. S.D. Cal. 1999].

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:34 pm

Next, plaintiff asked:
“INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Please list, explain and describe each and every code contained in each administrative report, reinvestigation log [dispute resolution log], and 7X report you generated or otherwise recorded regarding plaintiff. For each such code, please also explain and describe, in detail, the purpose of such code, the content of such action, the duration of such action, and the reason you permitted such action or entry.
ANSWER:”
As noted in plaintiff’s other pending motion, plaintiff seeks to compel production of the administrative and 7X reports and further argues for an order compelling herein. Plaintiff also seeks the production of all Administrative reports and 7X reports maintained by defendant which pertain to plaintiff and which pertain to other data files which Experian have continually mixed and blended with plaintiff’s credit data. These are ordinary business records at Experian although they are maintained in computerized form as opposed to hard copy form. This difference matters none where discovery is concerned. Experian is obliged to produced the records in readable and useable form. National Union Elec. Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Industries Co, Ltd., 494 F.Supp. 1257, 1259 [U.S.D.C. E.D. Pa. 1980]. Again, both the computer database information and records, as well as the underlying documents supporting the computer entries are discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 34[a]; Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376, 1382 [7th Cir. 1993]; Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1053 [U.S.D.C. S.D. Cal. 1999].
These reports and the underlying data are kept and maintained [and archived] in the ordinary course of business at Experian and Experian refuses to produce these records absent a court order. [[Again, if Experian disputes these contentions then plaintiff’s counsel is prepared to file with this Honorable Court deposition testimonies of various Experian witnesses admitting these facts, if it pleases the court.]] Experian claims that the archived credit data reported to Experian about plaintiff is somehow a trade secret of Experian and warrants confidentiality. [[Experian even seeks a protective order to cover these reports and their contents.]] Plaintiff asserts that this data is compiled and kept in the ordinary course of business and what Experian really seeks to do is prevent the use of these detailed, archived reports to show a pattern and practice and systemic problem at Experian which would justify the imposition of punitive damages for willfulness. Experian opts instead to defend one case at a time and seek to throw a blanket of confidentiality across all of the credit files in their system, as well as their procedures and policies.
Plaintiff’s own credit data is not confidential as to plaintiff and her attorneys. Plaintiff is entitled to know and show what specific identifiers were reported to Experian by the respective furnishers who have been listed on credit reports Experian published about plaintiff. Plaintiff will show that furnishers who reported totally different personal identifiers on various accounts had their account reportings misplaced, repeatedly and before and after disputes were lodged by plaintiff, in credit reports and credit files pertaining to plaintiff. [[Of course, at one point Experian’s counsel suggested that it cannot tell how these accounts were reported in terms of identifiers. The Admin and 7X reports show exactly how the identifiers were reported via the cross reference table. The specifics of the cross reference table and the features of the Admin and 7X reports were the subject of a prior motion to compel in which plaintiff, Carol Mixon, cited supra in footnote 6 as well, prevailed before Magistrate-Judge McKee. Counsels in Mixon, respectively as to plaintiff and Experian, are the same as this case. Thus, this Honorable Court has previously ordered production of these reports in Mixon. Filed in the Mixon record is a detailed explanation of how the Admin and 7X reports appear and why these reports are important. Counsel will re-file those papers if it pleases the court.]]
Experian is trying to stall discovery since delaying and impending deadlines benefit them. [[Plaintiff is also awaiting available dates from Experian’s counsel to depose several employees who actually handled the transactions and events underlying the allegations in the complaint, i.e, plaintiff’s disputes to Experian and the alleged reinvestigations Experian claims it performed.]]
Plaintiff seeks an order commanding Experian to produce all of the Administrative reports, 7X reports and any other archived data files and reports which Experian has captured and archived about plaintiff, which contain information about the manner in which each of the furnishers reported information about plaintiff. In the recent deposition commenced of Experian, plaintiff was prejudiced by the inability to question Shannon Stafford about these reports and the information listed above. Stafford, of course, was only designated on two topics.
Now, the codes listed in the raw data dumps require disclosure of how to decode the information. Experian purposefully utilizes codes for abbreviation and data storage functions, in addition to general masking of plain wording. Experian must produce a decode manual complete with all codes used. Experian’s vagueness and breadth objections seem contradicting. Experian also argues that it must keep these copies of plaintiff’s credit data secret. The fact is that Experian does not want to let any single plaintiff network the systemic issues with others and Experian seeks to keep its records ‘under seal’ and marked secret even though there is plainly nothing secret about them. Plaintiff asserts that Experian should be compelled to answer.
Plaintiff next asked:
“INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Please list, explain and describe each and every code contained in each computer data screen you possess regarding plaintiff. For each such code, please also explain and describe, in detail, the purpose of such code, the content of such action, the duration of such action, and the reason you permitted such action or entry.
ANSWER:”
Experian objected parroting its objections to the question prior and against refused to answer. Experian believes that computer routines, such a codes used to mark items are somehow confidential and trade secrets. Experian pretends that plaintiff is asking for its “Coca-Cola formula.” Experian’s position is the ruse it creates in each lawsuit.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:51 pm

MEMO

TO: DISCOVERY HOTLINE, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FROM: David Szwak, ESQ.


In Jensen v. Experian, ED TX, Brian Farlow, counsel for Experian, asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement or at least accept a redacted Admin report. I asked him what he proposed to redact, as I am not willing to sign any confidentiality agreement. That precludes me from being able to discuss the document and facts and verify information, etc.

Farlow said there are “alphanumeric” strings on the report he wished to redact. I asked
which and he could not explain it but said that they could be used, in reverse form, to
discern aspects of the matching program. I told him I would pull an Admin report from
another case and call him back.

I called him back and we did a line item review of the entire format and he detailed what
he sought to redact. He wanted to redact the Name/SSN and Address cross-referencing codes. I told him that we could not agree to that.

Example:
Format for Admin [abbreviated obviously] [copy sent with this fax]

++++++++++++

[coding] Mixon, Carol, 1234 X Street, Shreveport, LA 71101… {{this is ID info used to
generate the broad Admin report}}

PIN=123456789 {{Experian’s assigned ID number; they claim assigned to consumer; I
think it is file assigned and is later used as CAPS ID; if it is consumer specific, then it is
unclear how they decide to segregate files since they still have massive problem with
merged files, etc.}}

N=000011 Mixon, Carol, {{SSN}} 123-45-6789, {{then comes coding to tell you who
reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
N=002856 Mixon, Carol, {{SSN}} 000-00-0000, [[no SSN reported]] {{then comes
coding to tell you who reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
N=000145 Mixon, Carmen {{SSN}} 123-45-6789, {{then comes coding to tell you who
reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
N=000198 Mixon, Carol {{SSN}} 123-45-6789, {{then comes coding to tell you who
reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
N=001245 Mixon, Carol, {{SSN}} 312-67-9991, {{then comes coding to tell you who
reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
N=004598 Trexon, Carol {{SSN}} 312-67-9991, {{then comes coding to tell you who
reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
[[Etc., you get the idea]]


A=12356789 1234 X Street, Shreveport, LA 71101 {{then comes coding to tell you who
reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
A=34567899 2568 Y Street, Shreveport, LA 71101 {{then comes coding to tell you
who reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
A=34532277 2568 Y Street, Shreveport, LA 71101 {{then comes coding to tell you
who reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}
A=98765433 2568 Y Street, Shreveport, LA 71071 {{then comes coding to tell you
who reported this data to EIS and when, how, etc.}}

[[other info listed]]


[[then you come to trade line section]]

JC Penney, acct #12324567446456, [[metro tape data: type, balance, hi-credit etc.]]
N=001245, A=34567899
[[other important coding and data]]


Sears, acct #567446456, [[metro tape data: type, balance, hi-credit etc.]]
N=000011, A=34532277
[[other important coding and data]]

[[etc., you get the idea]]

Inquiries show the N= and A= used to access the report; includes all Experian inquiries
and what ID was used to generate; some inquiries show N=0000000 [means no name
entered]; some might show A=00000000, meaning no address entered to make inquiry. If
N=000000 and A=00000000, then that means that it was an SSN search, i.e., a search
performed using the SSN rather than Name or Address. It also shows the type of inquiries made. Admin, or TIN or D/R, etc. Admin is the full detailed report. TIN is the 7X report which shows some expanded detail on trade account data but very similar to Admin. The D/R shows the dispute resolution processes in connection with consumer ID.

Any employment or public record data also show coding as to when, where, how, etc., the data came in and the Name and Address associated with it.

++++++++++++++


Farlow wanted to redact the Name/SSN and Address coding from the report and its cross- referencing coding. That is the sole means of verifying HOW the creditor reported the data to EIS. That is likewise the sole means of determining what ID is associated with the trade and why EIS placed it in-file.

The cross referencing system could not be useful in assessing the matching process. It can only be concealed to deter plaintiffs from verifying the truthfulness of the defense.


I close by noting that the United States District Court in Nagle v. Experian, Northern
District of Alabama, cause no. CV-99-J-3297-S, denied Experian's request to force a
confidentiality and protective order on this same Admin report.


DASzwak

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:28 pm

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
2 SHERMAN DIVISION

3 JAMES E. JENSEN, *
*
4 Plaintiff, *
* CIVIL ACTION
5 VS. * NO. 00-CV-0040
*
6 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.*
*
7 Defendant. *

8

9 *********************************************************

10 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CAROLYN HELM

11 AUGUST 16, 2000

12 VOLUME 1

13 *********************************************************

14

15

16 ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF CAROLYN HELM, produced as a

17 witness duly sworn by me at the instance of the Plaintiff,

18 taken in the above-styled and -numbered cause on the 16th

19 day of August, 2000, A.D., beginning at 9:54 a.m. to 2:29

20 p.m., before LISA C. HUNDT, a Certified Shorthand Reporter

21 in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine

22 shorthand, in the offices of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue,

23 located at 2727 North Harwood, Dallas, Texas, in accordance

24 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

25 agreements hereinafter set forth.


***************

15 Q. Okay. Let me ask you -- let's start with just a

16 general question about what is the purpose of an

17 administrative report?

18 A. An admin report -- what we call an admin report --

19 is used for research purposes.

20 Q. Is it helpful in determining the validity of some

21 dispute by a consumer?

22 A. No, not in that way. It's used basically for

23 research purposes but not to determine the validity of

24 the -- of the dispute by the consumer.

25 Q. Does it help you determine what information is





11


1 being reported by a particular subscriber?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Does it help you in understanding what information

4 is supplied in connection with certain inquiries?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And the same would be true with regard to

7 reportings of information?

8 A. Yes.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:51 pm

14 A. Well, we have a archive retrieval system that we

15 can access from, but I don't know if that would be the same

16 as scanning.

17 Q. In essence, that would be a captured copy of the

18 admin or 7-X from the time that it was originally

19 generated. You wouldn't have to keep a paper copy?

20 A. The admin would not be a part of that system in

21 super caps. We may be -- in fact, I don't know if the 7-X,

22 unless it was accessed, if it would be a part of that

23 retrieval system.

24 Q. When you're researching, are you able to go back

25 and retrieve archived copies of the admin reports?





26


1 A. No.

2 Q. So if it's not printed in hard copy form and

3 retained in the manual file system, then it's gone forever?

4 A. Yes.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:40 pm

1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2
3 LARRY E. CARRIERE, II *
*
4 V. * Civil Action No.
* CV03-1340-S
5 EXPERIAN INFORMATION *
SOLUTIONS *
6
7
8
9
10 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
11 SHANNON LEE STAFFORD
12 JUNE 8, 2004
13
14
15
16
17 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SHANNON LEE
18 STAFFORD, produced as a witness at the instance of the
19 Plaintiff, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on
20 the 8th day of June, 2004, at 9:57 a.m., before Frances M.
21 Blacha, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State
22 of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, in the offices of
23 Jones Day, 2727 N. Harwood Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, in
24 the City of Dallas, County of Dallas and State of Texas, in
25 accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


21 Q In essence, the administrative report is a
22 detailed report in a standardized format that permits you to
23 look at each particular item on the report and tell how it
24 was reported and when it was reported to Experian; correct?
25 MR. McLOON: Objection. Questions about how

31
1 data is reported to Experian are beyond the scope of this
2 witness's designation under Rule 30(b)(6) and there's no
3 foundation for her to answer that question. You may
4 respond.
5 A Well, I can tell you, for example, under the
6 account information, it will give me a listing where the
7 subscriber -- where the creditor's information, the status
8 of the account, the account number, the condition of the
9 account.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:45 pm

10
15 Q. Okay. Let me ask you -- let's start with just a
16 general question about what is the purpose of an
17 administrative report?
18 A. An admin report -- what we call an admin report --
19 is used for research purposes.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:47 pm

37
13 Q. But you would be able to -- to glean from the
14 administrative report which accounts did appear at that
15 particular time frame -- during that time frame?
16 A. Well, not necessarily, David. The admin report
17 shows what's on the report right now. Just because an
18 account was opened doesn't necessarily indicate that it was
19 reported during that time frame.
20 Now, the actual report itself would, dated that date,
21 would tell us conclusively what was on the report.
22 Q. Okay. Well, assuming that -- that the copy of the
23 credit report could not be found, assuming MBNA -- and I'm
24 just saying that as an assumption; I don't know whether
25 they can produce it or not.

38
1 But if they could not produce it, I guess my question
2 is: Do you agree or disagree that, from looking at the
3 admin report, you could go back and decipher whether or
4 not, for example, Capital One Bank had been reporting to
5 Experian for a certain period of time, such as, on this
6 particular item, it shows five cycles on the Capital One
7 Bank account. You could determine that at the time the
8 admin was taken, that account had been on there for five
9 cycles of reporting?
10 A. That's what it would indicate, but five cycles
11 could mean a lot of different things. The best indication
12 of what was on the report is -- is a report that the
13 consumer received shortly after being -- getting a denial
14 letter.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:47 pm

11
22 Q. Let me ask you: Do Experian internal inquiries
23 still appear in the inquiry log on the admin reports?
24 A. Yes.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:16 pm

111
14 Q. And that Chase account, as indicated at least here
15 on this admin report, did not match any of the names or
16 addresses shown in the cross-reference log and had no
17 social security number associated with it.
18 A. Right. It had -- the name row was zero. On the
19 2/1/2000 admin, it has name row of zero, address rows of
20 zeros, and no social security number. However, we don't
21 know what the mixed file agent saw at the time he
22 investigated in 1998.
23 Q. But is there any indication that that information
24 has been altered in any way since he saw it?
25 A. There's not, but there's no indication that it was

112
1 not. So I can't -- I can't clearly say that's what he saw.
2 Q. It's information solely within the possession of
3 Experian, true?
4 A. As of this date.
5 Q. Well, what I'm asking you is: From the time that
6 the agent would have seen this admin report until even
7 today, the only person who's had possession of the data
8 that's contained in the admin report is Experian?
9 A. Well, that's true. But the admin report looks
10 different on different occasions. What the mixed file
11 agent saw in 1998 may be very different from what they saw
12 on the admin report in 2000.
13 Q. Okay. Now, there is a -- there is additionally --
14 pardon me just one second while I find what I'm looking
15 for.
16 Okay. On Experian page 91, Bates labeled 91, there is
17 the ANBCC account on the February 11, 1998 report. Do you
18 see that particular item?
19 A. Is that on a particular page on the admin?
20 Q. Yes, ma'am. It's page 2 of that February 11th
21 report.
22 A. Oh, I think you've got it.
23 Q. I'm sorry.
24 A. I was looking for it on the admin.
25 Q. You see the ANBCC account?

113
1 A. Yes, uh-huh.
2 Q. According to the administrative report at
3 Experian, there is no name -- and this is Experian page
4 185 -- there is no name or address associated with that
5 particular account. But there is the other social security
6 number, one of the erroneous socials, being reported in
7 connection with it.
8 Do you know why that particular account was not
9 suppressed at that time?
10 A. It could be that there was not enough
11 definitive -- well, and it does have an exclusion code of 1
12 on it.
13 Q. Right. Do you know when that exclusion code was
14 entered?
15 A. Well, let's see if it was -- there should be --
16 3/24 of '98, which would probably have been right in line
17 with the investigation.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:47 pm

114
23 Q. Do you know what any of the other coding below the
24 metro tape data on these admin reports means?
25 A. Where?

115
1 Q. For example, where it starts off "BA equal" and
2 then it appears to be a little box, and then there's a
3 number, and then there's "HI equals" with a box with a
4 number, and then it goes on and on.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And of course, I know the name and address
7 cross-reference, but there's other --
8 A. No. I don't know what the B -- I don't.
9 Q. Okay. Do you know what the VID number?
10 A. It's the vendor identification number, but I don't
11 know how that relates to the...
12 Q. And CYC is cycles. That's the number of times
13 that that item was reported?
14 A. That is what that is, yes.
15 Q. What about --
16 A. In a certain time frame.
17 Q. What about the "T equals" that comes after the
18 cycle?
19 A. That is an indication of what type of account that
20 is. For instance, that particular 18 means revolving
21 charge.
22 Q. Right. And that appear -- 18 appears to be a
23 popular number amongst these accounts?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What is -- is the "SD equals 1"? Is that the soft

116
1 delete notation?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Does any of the coding underneath the trade
4 line indicate the frequency that the particular creditor
5 reports, whether it be every 30 days or 60 days or once a
6 year?
7 A. I don't know that it does. It's usually related
8 to cycle time, but I don't know, like, for instance, cycle
9 time in -- I don't know if that's a 06, looks like it on my
10 copy -- but that indicates how often it reports. But we
11 don't know what cycle they're on, whether it's once a
12 month, every six months, 90 days, whatever.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:46 am

1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2
3 LARRY E. CARRIERE, II *
*
4 V. * Civil Action No.
* CV03-1340-S
5 EXPERIAN INFORMATION *
SOLUTIONS *
6
7
8
9
10 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
11 SHANNON LEE STAFFORD
12 JUNE 8, 2004
13
14
15
16
17 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SHANNON LEE
18 STAFFORD, produced as a witness at the instance of the
19 Plaintiff, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on
20 the 8th day of June, 2004, at 9:57 a.m., before Frances M.
21 Blacha, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State
22 of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, in the offices of
23 Jones Day, 2727 N. Harwood Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, in
24 the City of Dallas, County of Dallas and State of Texas, in
25 accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

29
20 Q So a TII inquiry can be any number of
21 administrative accesses, either for an NX report or 7X or
22 the administrative report; is that true?
23 MR. McLOON: Objection. That's beyond the
24 scope of the witness's designation under Rule 30(b)(6) and
25 there's no foundation for that.

30
1 A I don't know.
2 Q Okay. What about the CNX inquiries that are
3 listed on Exhibit A, are those inquiries that are requests
4 for initial disclosures by the consumer?
5 A I'm going off memory, but I believe that the CNX
6 indicator there could indicate that some type of disclosure
7 was produced.
8 Q Okay. How many times a day do you review
9 administrative reports?
10 A Several days could go by, if not longer than
11 that, without reviewing an administrative report.
12 Q How did you learn to read an administrative
13 report?
14 A Well, once I came across an administrative report
15 -- some of the information on here, for example, under the
16 account information, you can match up and see where it says
17 subscriber and it has subscriber's name, subcode number,
18 subcode number, account number, account number, and you can
19 line it up and see which information corresponds with that
20 data.
21 Q In essence, the administrative report is a
22 detailed report in a standardized format that permits you to
23 look at each particular item on the report and tell how it
24 was reported and when it was reported to Experian; correct?
25 MR. McLOON: Objection. Questions about how

31
1 data is reported to Experian are beyond the scope of this
2 witness's designation under Rule 30(b)(6) and there's no
3 foundation for her to answer that question. You may
4 respond.
5 A Well, I can tell you, for example, under the
6 account information, it will give me a listing where the
7 subscriber -- where the creditor's information, the status
8 of the account, the account number, the condition of the
9 account.
10 Q Are you able to go back historically and look at
11 prior administrative reports that were accessed on a
12 particular consumer when you're doing research in your job?
13 A It's my understanding if an administrative report
14 was not pulled prior, no, we would not be able to pull a
15 prior -- well, let me see if I understand your question.
16 You're asking me can I pull a prior
17 administrative report on past data?
18 Q Well, let me ask you this: If you were looking
19 at Mr. Carriere's credit file on September 30 --
20 A Uh-huh.
21 Q -- of 2003, as shown in this Exhibit A, and it
22 showed that there was a prior administrative report that had
23 been accessed, would you have the ability in your system to
24 go back and look at how the prior administrative report
25 appeared?

32
1 MR. McLOON: Incomplete hypothetical,
2 assumes facts not in evidence.
3 A I don't believe so, but that would be more of a
4 systems question.
5 Q But have you ever done it?
6 A No.
7 Q You've never looked back historically at a prior
8 administrative report that was accessed before the date that
9 you were pulling an administrative report for review?
10 A No.
11 Q What about a 7X report, can you look back
12 historically at 7X reports?
13 A I don't believe so.
14 Q Now, an NX report is a different type of report;
15 is that true?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And the difference between the NX report and the
18 7X report is that it highlights for you changes or
19 alterations that have been made in file through manual
20 maintenance at Experian; is that true?
21 MR. McLOON: Objection. No foundation.
22 A Well, the 7X report would show me, for example,
23 if a particular account was removed from file, I could see
24 that it was removed based on the 7X report, where on the NX
25 report it wouldn't show.

33
1 Q Well, what is the difference then, in your view,
2 between a 7X report and an NX report?
3 MR. McLOON: Objection. No foundation.
4 A Just that. You would be able to see from the 7X
5 report if an account was removed versus the NX report it
6 wouldn't show. And the NX report would be more the updated
7 consumer version to be sent to the consumer.
8 Q So an NX report is an updated version after
9 changes have been made and you would not be able to view the
10 changes that had been made; correct?
11 A We could always access a D/R log to determine
12 that information. But as far as, as I said earlier, the NX
13 would not show a deleted account.
14 Q I want to make sure that we separate out the
15 different documents at Experian.
16 One is a disclosure log. You-all have a
17 disclosure log; right?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And that tells you each time a consumer has
20 requested a credit report that you've responded under that
21 particular credit file; correct?
22 A Yes. The disclosure log would show the dates in
23 which we distributed a disclosure.
24 Q Of a particular credit file tied to a particular
25 PIN number; is that correct?

34
1 A Yes.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:43 pm

1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
2 MARSHALL DIVISION
3 DIANA A. POULSON, *
Plaintiff, *
4 *
vs. * CASE NO. 2:05CV75
5 *
TRANS UNION, LLC, CSC CREDIT *
6 SERVICES, INC., EQUIFAX *
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, *
7 EXPERIAN INFORMATION *
SOLUTIONS, INC., DISCOVER *
8 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., *
USAA CREDIT CARD BANK, SEARS *
9 ROEBUCK & CO., INC. AND *
CITIBANK [USA], N.A., *
10 * JURY DEMAND
Defendants. * JUDGE DAVIS
11
12 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
13 KIMBERLY KAY HUGHES
14 NOVEMBER 18, 2005
15
16 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KIMBERLY
17 KAY HUGHES, produced as a witness at the instance of
18 the Plaintiff, taken in the above-styled and numbered
19 cause on the 18th day of November, 2005, from
20 10:23 a.m. to 4:28 p.m., before Frances M. Blacha, a
21 Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of
22 Texas, reported by machine shorthand, in the offices of
23 Jones Day, 2727 N. Harwood Street, Dallas, Texas 75201,
24 in the City of Dallas, County of Dallas and State of
25

2
1 Texas, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
2 Procedure.

83
4 Q I think when we left off we were looking at
5 the administrative report from Experian, and I want to
6 -- I want to ask you about some information that is
7 contained in the inquiry log of the administrative
8 report pertaining to certain types of inquiries.
9 Do you have knowledge of the different
10 types of inquiries that post -- when Experian makes an
11 access of a report they post a particular type of
12 inquiry. Do you know what those decode to mean?
13 A Certain ones I may. I'll just have to answer
14 that on a case-by-case basis.
15 Q Let me ask you about, for example, TII. Does
16 that mean that there was a disclosure of the report
17 made?
18 A My understanding of TII is for administrative
19 purposes.
20 Q Okay. What about ADM, would that be an
21 administrative report?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q Okay. Would -- CNX, would that be a
24 reinvestigation?
25 A CNX is -- it's like consumer NX. It's a --

84
1 it's a frozen consumer credit report. And it's
2 accessing of a disclosure. And you'll see those
3 notated where a disclosure was actually accessed, and
4 then you'll see those when a CDF was generated to a
5 consumer.
6 Q So a CNX disclosure could be either a CDF, a
7 consumer disclosure final, what is -- what we would
8 call a post reinvestigation report? Is that a fair
9 assessment?
10 A Yes, it can be.
11 Q Or it could be a disclosure, which is a CDI,
12 which would be your front-end copy of a credit file to
13 the consumer. Is that a fair statement?
14 A That's correct. It can also be the creation
15 of a disclosure where one is not sent to a consumer.
16 For instance, if you create the disclosure for the
17 purpose of making the entries for the disputes, that
18 still is captured in an inquiry format.
19 Q So that would be like an internal capture or
20 an internal report for review?
21 A That's correct. It would capture the
22 information that was on file at the time that that
23 report was accessed.
24 Q Now, there is a designation of CAU. Do you
25 know what that means?

85
1 A I don't.
2 Q All right. According to the administrative
3 report, there was some activity with Experian accessing
4 this file on September 7, 2001, and September 8 of
5 2001, and I was curious if you could tell me about
6 those events. It's on Experian 346 of Exhibit 19.
7 They both show to be CNX inquiries. And I was going to
8 ask you what happened on that date.
9 A One of those 9/7 -- the first one dated
10 9/7/01 is the access or creation of the actual consumer
11 disclosure. The one for 9/8/01 is in a CDF format and
12 indicates that some sort of communication was sent to
13 the consumer.
14 Q What was the date of the report we looked at
15 a moment ago, the credit report copy?
16 MS. ANDREW: We had the letter.
17 Q You had -- you had a disclosure log from
18 September; right?
19 A It was Exhibit 3.
20 Q Okay. Does it relate to those two inquiries?
21 A I believe that it does.
22 Q Is it -- what is the date of the disclosure
23 log on the disclosure log?
24 A One date is 9/4/01; one date is 9/7/01.
25 Q Okay. So you believe on 9/4/01 there was a

86
1 request received from Ms. Poulson for a copy of her
2 report or some -- I think you told me in 2001 there
3 were some disputes that she made.
4 A That's correct.
5 MS. ANDREW: Objection, form.
6 Q Is that right?
7 A Yes, that's correct.
8 Q Okay. So on 9/7 of '01 you believe you-all
9 would have sent her a disclosure report?
10 A No, sir. On 9/7/01 we would -- we created
11 and accessed her disclosure to process her
12 investigation request.
13 Q That would be like an internal access and
14 copy of a report?
15 A Correct.
16 Q And that's snapshotted in your records so you
17 know what that looks like because there's a reference
18 number to it?
19 A The CAPID number would be its reference.
20 Q Okay. So if we're looking at Experian 346 on
21 the administrative report where it says REF equals
22 23309-6787, is that the archive reference number?
23 MS. ANDREW: Objection, form.
24 A That's a -- it corresponds to the report
25 number that was created at that time.

87
1 Q And that's a CAPID number?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q So if you-all wanted to search back in your
4 records to see what a report looked like, you could go
5 back to the CAPID number if it's still archived in your
6 system and you could pull it up?
7 MS. ANDREW: Objection, form.
8 A In that capacity we would request the archive
9 retrieval for the entire PIN, which would encompass all
10 the CAPID numbers. It is my recollection from this
11 packet that that -- the archive retrieval for this
12 consumer did not produce that particular frozen
13 snapshot. It was unavailable, but there are occasions
14 where it could be available.
15 Q Now, on the very next day, September 8, 2001,
16 we see a reference number, but the reference number
17 from the prior day, the same exact CAPS number, but it
18 ends with 9999. Is that an indication it was a post
19 reinvestigation or CDF report?
20 A Yes. It's indicating that it was some sort
21 of response to the consumer.
22 Q Okay. But it's a -- more or less a
23 concluding response to the consumer when you add the
24 designation of 999 to the CAPID number?
25 MS. ANDREW: Objection, form.

88
1 A It is the -- it is referenced as a CDF or
2 consumer disclosure final. I just want to make the
3 distinction that there may not always be investigation
4 results. There may just be educational material sent.
5 Q Okay. Thank you.
6 All right. And I believe that we looked
7 at a moment ago -- we're still on Exhibit 19, but we
8 were on the prior page Bates labeled 345. There are
9 two inquiries, and one of the inquiries goes on to the
10 next page, both on February 11 of 2002. And we looked
11 at the credit report copy, the disclosure that was sent
12 to Ms. Poulson on February 11 of 2002. You believe
13 that this would be the document that is indicated on
14 the inquiry log in the administrative report?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Now, we know -- there's a CNX. That would be
17 the disclosure. Do we -- and based upon now looking at
18 this report in connection with the administrative
19 report, is there any way to know what that other
20 inquiry would have involved, a CAU?
21 A My vague understanding of that is that it's
22 some sort of system authentication, because the
23 consumer is coming and self-servicing online, so it's
24 some sort of authentication process that the system is
25 going through in order to provide the consumer with

89
1 that Internet disclosure.
2 Q Okay. That makes sense. I appreciate that.
3 Thank you.
4 Okay. It appears to me that during the
5 year 2003 there was no activity in Ms. Poulson's file
6 that related to her communicating with Experian or
7 Experian communicating back to her. Does that -- that
8 appear to be accurate?
9 A Yes, sir, it does.


94
2 Q Okay. On that particular inquiry it appears
3 that whoever pulled the report at Experian did not
4 enter a particular name or address. Is that true?
5 A There are no name -- name or address
6 information listed there, and so that -- and without
7 there being an inquiry type like a CNS or CNX, you
8 can't really assume that it was someone accessing a
9 report. It could be some sort of system maintenance.
10 There's no way for me to determine from this what area
11 or even what the purpose was for that inquiry.
12 Q Do you know whether those particular
13 inquiries are system maintenance?
14 A No, I don't. But if it were someone in the
15 National Consumer Assistance Center accessing a report,
16 you would see an appropriate inquiry type and an
17 appropriate subscriber number listed, and I don't see
18 either of those.
19 Q Okay. All right. And then there are a
20 series of inquiries, the next one being on July 5 of
21 2004, and it's reflected on Page Experian 345, and it
22 again is another inquiry where the name and the address
23 appear zeroed out, and it has the same subscriber
24 number 0999803. Do you know anything about why that
25 inquiry may have occurred or that notation being posted

95
1 on this file?
2 A No. I see --
3 MS. ANDREW: Objection, form.
4 A -- an entire series of those starting 6/30/04
5 and the last one 9/20/04, and I'm unfamiliar with any
6 of those codes to be able to even speculate as to what
7 those were in relation to.
8 Q Okay. What about the series of inquiries
9 that occurred on July 13, July 14, July 15 and July 16
10 of 2004? There's a series of them that are listed in
11 this report, and they are on Page -- there's one at the
12 bottom of Experian 346, and the balance of them are on
13 Exhibit 347. Bates label 347.
14 MS. ANDREW: Objection, form.
15 A I'm sorry. I'm not sure --
16 Q Are you able to determine --
17 A -- where you're -- on 346 where are you?
18 Q We'll take them in order.
19 A Okay.
20 Q Let's look at the one 9/13. There are two
21 inquiries listed on Experian Bates 347 about two-thirds
22 of the way down the page.
23 A You said July 13?
24 Q Yes, ma'am.
25 A Okay.

96
1 Q Could you tell me based upon what you know
2 about the report, why were those inquiries made and
3 what do they pertain to?
4 A Starting with that inquiry, 7/13/04 and
5 spilling over into 348, with the last one dated
6 3/22/05, the subscriber number provided there and also
7 the reference number ending in 1001 indicates that this
8 is profile maintenance activity.
9 Q This would be activity as a result of the
10 ACDVs returning to Experian; right?
11 A No, sir.
12 Q Okay. When an ACDV is returned with a code
13 indicating that the account should be deleted, is that
14 done automatedly?
15 MS. ANDREW: Objection, form.
16 A It can be automated if it doesn't require
17 human intervention, but the inquiry that corresponds to
18 that is -- the only inquiry that would correspond to
19 that would be the generation of the CDF indicative with
20 the 999.
21 Q If we were looking for the completion of the
22 June 2004 reinvestigation, we would be looking for a
23 CAPID number that would end with a 999, indicating that
24 the report which I've marked as Exhibit Number 20 was
25 generated. The post -- this is the post

97
1 reinvestigation report; correct?
2 A Yes, that's correct.


Return to “Experian Secret Documents”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests