Plaintiff Alycia Johns brought this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act following several years of disputing various tradelines with credit reporting agencies based on her claim of identity theft.
Johns relied on her expert, Douglas Hollon, to assert that Nelnet failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the disputes.
Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC, along with Equifax, TransUnion, LVNV, Resurgent, and First Premier, filed motions to limit or exclude 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, has a Credit Analysis Certification from the New York Institute of Finance, has certifications in Credit Risk Modeling and Credit Scorecard Development from SASInstitute, Inc., and has completed the American Bankers Association Certification in Lending Compliance for Compliance Professionals.
He worked at Experian from 2005 until 2019, where he began in a position assisting consumers with their disputes, and then handled escalated credit report disputes for his remaining years with Experian. While at Experian, he received specialized training involving fraud and “mixed file” disputes. Prior to his time at Experian, he was an investigator with the U.S. Army CID, where he conducted investigations for sixteen years.
Discussion by the Court
A. Qualification
Defendants asserted that Hollon is not qualified to opine on their investigations, or their policies or procedures. They argued that his opinions are based on the dictionary definition of “investigation” and his personal experience as an investigator with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”).
Hollon’s expertise is based primarily on his experience. In his report, Hollon explained that his experience at Experian involved handling disputes, assisting tens of thousands of customers, explaining credit score factors, and understanding information received from Public Record Vendors.
While Hollon’s explanation of how his experience led to the conclusions reached in this respect is minimal, the Court found that Hollon is sufficiently qualified to testify as an expert regarding investigations and reinvestigations of credit disputes by CRAs and furnishers.
The Court also 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 on consumer reports.”
C. Reliability
Defendants argued that Hollon’s opinions on Defendants’ investigations, and their policies and procedures, are not reliable. Specifically, they argued that his opinions on policies and procedures are based on prior knowledge of Experian’s procedures, regulatory agency publications, case law, deposition transcripts, and “company manuals or publications and other related documents” that he is unable to identify.
Johns asserted that there is no standard procedure for a reasonable investigation under the FCRA, and so Hollon’s experience “is the closest the jury will get to a standard, industry-wide practice.”
While Johns suggested that it is the Defendants’ burden to show why Hollon’s CID investigative experience is not applicable to the FCRA context, that disregarded the burden imposed under Rule 702 on the proponent of the expert testimony.
Hollon’s reliability further falters as he is unable to identify what he relied on. For instance, he references deposition transcripts involving these Defendants in other cases, but cannot identify what cases they came from.
Hollon’s opinions are rendered more unreliable because they do not dependably flow from the facts. He asserts: “I believe that she submitted a police report which is — and she was a victim of identity theft. That is my opinion.” His report opens with, “Plaintiff, Alycia Johns, is a victim of identity theft.” But the alleged identity theft in this case is not so clearly established. Rather, it is only Johns’ testimony and the police report—based on her statement, which does not specify which tradelines she asserted are the result of identity theft—which support this conclusion. It is the province of the jury, not an expert, to make credibility determinations.
The Court found that Hollon’s opinions are unreliable because generalized statements from Hollon regarding the harm other consumers have faced when their consumer reports contained inaccuracies is not relevant to the present case.
Held
The Court granted the Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of Douglas Hollon.
Key Takeaway
An expert’s experience, without an explanation of how that experience supports the conclusion, cannot be a substitute for reliable principles or methods. Hollon repeatedly stated that his opinions are based on his “experience, skills, and knowledge,” yet he offered no explanation of what aspects of that experience, skills, or knowledge he drew upon in reaching his conclusions. An expert’s opinion cannot be deemed reliable when it rests solely on the expert’s ipse dixit.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Johns V. Nelnet |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv4791 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern |
| Order Date: | March 31, 2026 |
Leave a Reply