Credit Reporting Expert Witness' Testimony About Actual Damages Sustained by Plaintiff Excluded

Credit Reporting Expert Witness’ Testimony About Actual Damages Sustained by Plaintiff Excluded

Plaintiff, Noah Ford rented an apartment in Colorado. He signed a Lease Agreement and additional lease documents and moved into the apartment on or about September 3, 2020. On or about July 4, 2021, Ford signed another Lease Agreement and additional lease documents to rent the same apartment for an additional year, for the period August 2, 2021 to August 1, 2022. On or about September 2, 2021, Ford gave notice that he intended to move out and did move out of the apartment. However, pursuant to the terms of the first Lease Agreement, and the second Lease Agreement, and as a result of his breach of such terms, Ford owed payment for the remainder of the lease term, along with additional other charges.

Ford failed to pay any part of the balance due, and the account was assigned to Defendant I.Q. Data for collection. I.Q. Data also marked the account as disputed for all purposes, including credit reporting. This disputed status remains on the account to date.

As a result of re-renting the apartment, the landlord later revised the balance due. As a result of identifying a duplicate entry, the landlord later revised the balance again. The current principal balance is $12,215.38, and that amount remains due. Ford purports to have disputed the debt with each CRA.

Plaintiff’s proposed expert, Thomas Tarter, sought to offer opinions on (1) whether Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) whether Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”); and (3) whether Plaintiff was damaged by the conduct of Defendants.

Defendant filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Tarter.

Credit Reporting Expert Witness

Thomas Tarter is the Managing Director of The Andela Consulting Group, Inc. (“ACG”), banking, business, credit industry, management and corporate finance consulting firm. He has more than 50-years of experience in commercial and consumer credit reporting, debt collection, credit origination, dispute resolution industry customs, standards and practices and credit damages.

Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Thomas Tarter’s expert testimony. 

Discussion by the Court

The Court held that Tarter is not qualified to testify about the legal standards of, alleged violations of, or defenses to, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In his expert report, Tarter admitted he had could not provide an estimate of Ford’s economic credit damages, the value of Ford’s lost sleep, or the value of time and energy Ford spent to correct his credit, because Tarter had not reviewed any supporting documentation. In his deposition, Tarter conceded he had not reviewed any discovery at the time of his report concerning Defendant’s policies on providing information to credit reporting agencies or how Defendant investigates disputed debts and claims of inaccurate reporting.

Ford stated that, at trial, Tarter will not quantify or assign a dollar value to Ford’s credit stigma, chilling, credit availability, credit expectancy, employment, or impact of a lower credit score. The Court excluded Tarter’s testimony about actual damages sustained by Ford and sought to exclude any testimony from Tarter regarding topics not set forth in either his expert report or deposition testimony.

However, Tarter has significant experience working in the financial and credit reporting industry, such as involvement in debt collection practices and seeking loan approvals involving personal lines of credit. The Court believed that this experience provides him with a reliable basis from which he may opine on these topics.

Held

The Court limited the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Thomas Tarter.

Key Takeaway:

Even thought Tarter admitted he had could not provide an estimate of Ford’s economic credit damages, the value of Ford’s lost sleep, or the value of time and energy Ford spent to correct his credit, because Tarter had not reviewed any supporting documentation, his only saving grace remains his extensive experience.

Case Details:

Case Caption:Ford V. Iq Data International Inc Et Al
Docket Number:2:22cv1791
Court:United States District Court, Washington Western
Order Date:September 05, 2024

 


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *