Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Consumer Credit Expert Witness

  • Consumer Credit Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Policies

    Consumer Credit Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Policies

    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.

    Want to know more about the challenges Douglas Hollon has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    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
  • Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files

    Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files

    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.”

    Want to know more about the challenges Douglas Hollon has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    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
  • Consumer Credit Expert’s Opinion on Damages Limited

    Consumer Credit Expert’s Opinion on Damages Limited

    This matter arises out of Plaintiff Tyler Oatway’s July 2023 ill-fated attempt to purchase a car from used car dealer Definitive Motors. Definitive Motors obtained Oatway’s credit reports from the three major credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) through Defendant 700 Credit, LLC, which is a reseller of consumer information.

    According to Oatway, 700 Credit and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) falsely reported him as “deceased,” and Oatway was unable to purchase the vehicle. Subsequently, Oatway filed suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 

    700 Credit filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Oatway’s expert Douglas 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.”

    Want to know more about the challenges Douglas Hollon has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Hollon opined that 700 Credit “failed to maintain adequate procedures to ensure accuracy in its reports regarding Plaintiff.” Hollon also opined that 700 Credit “does not have any policies or procedures to review consumer reports with a deceased notation before sending the reports to third parties.”

    Hollon’s Opinion is Excluded in Part

    700 Credit’s Arguments

    700 Credit filed a motion to exclude Hollon’s opinions in their entirety for two reasons.  First, it contended that Hollon “improperly offers a legal opinion that the Red Flag Summary qualifies as a ‘consumer report’—a statutory term whose interpretation is reserved for the Court.” Second, 700 Credit avers that Oatway “failed to make [Hollon] available for a deposition after 700 Credit timely noted his deposition to occur before the discovery cutoff.” 

    Because the characterization of the Red Flag Report as a consumer report is a legal issue as set forth above, the Court excluded Hollon’s opinion on that issue. However, since the Court found that the Red Flag Report is a consumer report, it did not exclude his opinions as unreliable solely because they flow from that conclusion.

    The Court also excluded as a legal conclusion Hollon’s opinion that 700 Credit is legally responsible “for the data they report” and did not fulfill its legal obligation by simply forwarding what it receives from another CRA. 

    Turning to 700 Credit’s request that Hollon be excluded as a discovery sanction, the Court found that 700 Credit is not entitled to such relief. 700Credit relies only on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A)(i) in support of its request, but as the language it quotes makes clear, that rule applies only when “a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent . . . fails . . . to appear for that person’s deposition.” Hollon is not a party or other listed person, so this section is inapplicable.

    Even if 700 Credit had relied on an applicable rule—which it did not—it would not be entitled to exclusion. True enough, Rule 26(b) requires parties to make their experts available for deposition. However, “the Rule 37(c)(1) sanction” of exclusion “is not triggered by a violation of Rule 26(b).” 

    Oatway has not met his burden under Rule 702

    The Court found that Oatway has not met his burden under Rule 702 with respect to much of Hollon’s proposed testimony.

    First, much of Hollon’s report is commentary on other evidence in the record. The Court also found that some of Hollon’s opinions are obvious and thus not helpful to the trier of fact, including that 700 Credit had inconsistent information about Oatway because “dead persons do not apply for credit or make payments on loans.”

    Hollon also failed to explain how he reached his conclusions. To begin with, Hollon did not explain what 700 Credit should have done—or required its customers (the furnishers of the information) to do—or whether its process deviated from industry standards. He failed to address altogether the reliability or trustworthiness of the sources from whom 700 Credit obtained its resold information (e.g., Experian and the Social Security Administration). Instead, Hollon pronounced in conclusory fashion that 700 Credit’s practice of transmitting information it received from “various sources” “failed to assure maximum possible accuracy.” 

    In addition, Hollon opined that 700 Credit did not conduct a reasonable investigation when Oatway complained, but again, he did not explain his methodology or his conclusory opinion.

    Last, Hollon opined to some limited degree on the harm Oatway suffered and the harm consumers typically suffer as a result of inaccuracies on consumer reports. Oatway can speak to his own damages, and Hollon’s recitation of his damages is unhelpful (especially considering that Hollon is not qualified to opine on Oatway’s emotional distress), so the Court excluded that portion of Hollon’s damages opinion. The Court found, however, 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 consumer reports. 

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part 700 Credit’s motion to exclude the opinions of Oatway’s expert Douglas Hollon.

    Key Takeaway:

    The role of an expert is not to “simply comment on all the evidence,” and an expert’s mere recitation of facts, detached from accompanying analysis, is improper under Rule 701.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Oatway V. Experian Information Solutions Inc Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:24cv523
    Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
    Order Date: September 19, 2025