Plaintiff, Jamaal Nelson applied for housing with Younger Developments in Texas around February 2023. He alleged he was denied housing on February 7, 2023 because Defendant’s consumer credit report reported Plaintiff as “Deceased” on a Capital One tradeline and this happened because Defendant failed to investigate the alleged inaccuracy. He added that due to his being denied housing in Texas he had to take a lower paying job in Florida where he paid higher rent. Against Defendant, Plaintiff pursued claims for (1) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) for failure to assure maximum possible accuracy and (2) violation of the FCRA for failure to investigate.
Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Douglas A. Hollon.
Credit Reporting Expert Witness
Douglas A. Hollon is currently the President and Owner of Credit Experts of North Texas, LLC. He began his career in the consumer reporting industry in 2005 as a Dispute Agent with Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Initially, he helped consumers with their mail or telephone disputes of items listed on their consumer file. Hollon was later promoted to Consumer Affairs Special Services (CASS), now known as Experian Consumer Affairs (ECA). In ECA, he handled escalated credit report disputes.
In addition to his dispute training, he received specialized training involving fraud (identity theft) disputes and mixed file disputes.
Discussion by the Court
The Court has reviewed Hollon’s report in its entirety. Hollon’s principal conclusion is that that Defendant “failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possibly accuracy” and that if Defendant “had reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, it would have verified a deceased notation reported by a data furnisher before storing the information on an [individual’s] file.”
Hollon never explains the factual materials on which he bases his conclusion
After a careful review of the parties’ briefing and Hollon’s expert report, the Court excluded Hollon’s testimony as to whether Defendant’s credit accuracy procedures are reasonable. As to the conclusion that it is not reasonable for Defendant to rely on data furnishers, the Court found that Hollon did not articulate concrete factual materials or sources on which he based his conclusion.
At best, Hollon attempted to rely on his prior experience working for Defendant to reach his conclusions. For example, Hollon alleged that while he worked for Defendant, he observed that Defendant prioritized “costs of doing business . . . over doing what was right.”
The Court held that Hollon never explained concretely, however, how such financial incentives were relevant to his conclusion that Defendant failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.
Hollon also claimed Defendant’s dispute resolution system is “biased,” “cost driven,” and that his conclusion is supported by “[his] own personal experience.” The Court, once again, noted that Hollon never explained the factual materials on which he based his conclusion that it is unreasonable for Defendant to rely on Data Furnishers.
Hollon also opined about the economic difficulties consumers faced due to “misreporting on a credit report.” Further, in a declaration submitted with Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion, Hollon attempted to explain why he was qualified to opine on the psychological impact of inaccuracies in a credit report. The Court, however, excluded Hollon’s testimony as to Plaintiff’s non-emotional and emotional damages.
The Court found that Hollon is qualified to speak, in general terms and as found relevant at trial, about the sort of damages that are typically caused by errors on credit reports.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Douglas A. Hollon.
Key Takeaway:
Hollon’s testified about whether Defendant’s credit accuracy procedures are reasonable. He also opined about the economic difficulties consumers faced due to “misreporting on a credit report.” After a careful review of the parties’ briefing and Hollon’s expert report, the Court excluded Hollon’s testimony as to whether Defendant’s credit accuracy procedures are reasonable.
The Court, however, excluded Hollon’s testimony as to Plaintiff’s non-emotional and emotional damages.
The Court found that Hollon is qualified to speak, in general terms and as found relevant at trial, about the sort of damages that are typically caused by errors on credit reports.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Nelson V. Experian Information Solutions Inc |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv1634 |
| Court: | United States District Court, South Carolina |
| Order Date: | June 27, 2024 |
Leave a Reply