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.”
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 |
