This case involves alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiff Ronald Alexander Garcia Delgado claimed that Defendant Experian Information Solutions failed to use reasonable procedures when preparing consumer reports—mixing Plaintiff’s information with his son’s.
Plaintiff hired an expert, Douglas Hollon, to help prove his case. Defendant Experian Information Solution, Inc. filed a motion to strike or limit the testimony of Hollon.
Consumer Credit Expert Witness
Douglas A. Hollon holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Finance. He has received FCRA certifications from the Consumer Data Industry Association, and he has earned additional certifications.
He has worked in the consumer finance reporting industry since 2005, when he began working for Experian. His work for Experian spanned 14 years from 2005 through 2019 in the National Consumer Assistance Center—Experian’s main dispute processing center—where he helped consumers “resolve their issues” and “[p]rovid[ed] leadership advice to current supervisors.”
He handled “escalated credit report disputes” submitted on consumers’ behalf by attorneys and government entities. He has also received “specialized training involving fraud (identity theft) disputes” and testified on Experian’s behalf as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. In addition to his experience at Experian, he has studied “regulatory agency publications, case law, deposition transcripts, company manuals or publications, and other related documents,” contributing to his “extensive knowledge of other Consumer Reporting Agencies’ (CRAs) and Data Furnishers’ credit dispute operations.” Since 2020, Hollon has been the owner of Credit Experts of North Texas, LLC. Over the course of his career, he has “assisted tens of thousands of customers.”
Discussion by the Court
The Defendant challenged Hollon’s testimony on three grounds. First, Defendant challenged Hollon’s qualifications. Second, Defendant argued that Hollon’s opinions included legal conclusions. And third, Defendant challenged the reliability of Hollon’s methods.
I. Qualifications
Defendant’s qualification challenge targets Hollon’s ability to testify about Plaintiff’s economic and emotional damages.
Plaintiff denied that Hollon offered testimony about the emotional distress Plaintiff allegedly experienced. The Court saw no reason to exclude testimony that Plaintiff did not intend to offer.
As to non-economic damages, Hollon cannot testify about Plaintiff’s specific damages or their cause but may testify about the types of types of damages typically caused by errors on credit reports.
II. Improper Legal Conclusions
Defendant argued that some of Hollon’s opinions are improper legal conclusions.
Plaintiff responded that Hollon will not use language such as “unreasonable, unreliable, inadequate, negligent, willful” or definitively state that particular conduct violated the FCRA. Instead, Plaintiff represents, Hollon will testify about “consumer reporting industry standards,” and “how a Defendant’s conduct or procedures comport with those standards.”
Based on Plaintiff’s representations, the Court will not exclude Hollon’s testimony. If, at trial, Hollon offers legal opinions that contradict Plaintiff’s representations to the Court, the Court will take appropriate action upon objection.
III. Reliability
Defendant argued that Hollon’s opinions are unreliable because he has no methodology and his opinions are full of serious errors. Plaintiff responded that Hollon’s method is sufficiently reliable and that any alleged errors would be better explored through cross-examination.
The Court agreed with Plaintiff. It is true that Hollon does not name a specific method. Here, Hollon’s testimony rests primarily on his 19 years of experience, which is permissible. Hollon’s experience and expertise led him to conclude that alternatives to Defendant’s procedures would prevent mixed files, and it is for the jury to decide whether his opinion is credible.
Although Defendant identified deficiencies in Hollon’s testimony, the Court is unconvinced that exclusion is required.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Experian Information Solution, Inc.’s motion to strike or limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Douglas Hollon.
Key Takeaway
If the expert witness is relying solely or primarily on experience, then the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Garcia Delgado V. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 4:24cv637 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Eastern |
| Order Date: | March 10, 2026 |
Leave a Reply