Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_03-cv-00525/USCOURTS-azd-3_03-cv-00525-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christine Baker, )

 )

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 03-0525 PHX RCB

 )

vs. ) O R D E R

 )

Fair, Isaac & Company, )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. ) )

Introduction

On August 30, 2006, the remaining defendants, Experian

Information Solutions, Inc., and Consumerinfo.com, Inc., filed

summary judgment motions. Instead of filing a response to that

motion, on September 12, 2006, the day on which her response was

due, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Enforce Privacy Rules and to

Remove Credit Reports Filed by Defendant Experian[.]" Doc. 317. 

As will be more fully discussed below, the court granted that

motion in part, and denied it in part. See Doc. 318.

On September 28, 2006, again, rather than filing a response to

the summary judgment motions, plaintiff filed another motion. This 

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 327 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

time she is seeking three different types of relief: (1) a

"protective order[;]" (2) sanctions; and (3) an extension of time

in which to respond to defendants' motions for summary judgment. 

See Doc. 322. 

Background

On September 15, 2006, this court ordered Experian to "redact

the month and date of plaintiff's birth from exhibits 4 and 5 of

the Hughes' Declaration (Doc. 316)[,]" which was filed as part of

its summary judgment motion. Doc. 318 at 4-5. On September 21,

2006, not only did Experian comply with that order, but it went

beyond the scope of that order. In addition to re-filing redacted

exhibits, attorney Carlson reviewed all of the exhibits which were

attached to the Hughes' Declaration which was filed in support of

ConsumerInfo's summary judgment motion (doc. 315), as well as those

which were attached to the Hughes' Declaration filed in support of

Experian's summary judgment motion (doc. 316). See Doc. 325,

Decl'n of Marc S. Carlson (Oct. 2, 2006) thereto at 8, ¶ 3. In so

doing, Mr. Carlson discovered "four other instances where

Plaintiff's date of birth appeared[,]" so he redacted those

documents as well. See id. at 8, ¶ 4. He inadvertently overlooked

the fact, however, that plaintiff's date of birth also appeared on

exhibit 3 of the Hughes' Declaration in support of Experian's

motion (doc. 316). Id. Thus upon re-filing, plaintiff's date of

birth still appeared on that exhibit. 

In examining the redacted filings, on September 24, 2006,

plaintiff pro se noticed that her date of birth still appeared on

that exhibit. Doc. 322 at 2. She also points out that "every

single credit report" which is a part of those exhibits includes

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 327 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

"the first 7 digits of her SSN [social security number][.]" Id. 

Apparently student loan documents use the borrower's SSN as the

loan identifier. Significantly, plaintiff did not identify which

accounts are her student loans, and it is not clear on the face of

the exhibits. That same day, plaintiff e-mailed attorney Carlson

requesting that he redact her birth date and SSN from all

previously filed exhibits. Id., exh. A thereto at 2. 

Three days later, on September 27, 2006, attorney Carlson

responded to plaintiff via e-mail, apologizing for the delay in

responding, explaining that it was due to his absence from the

office. Id., exh. A thereto at 1. In addition, Mr. Carlson advised

plaintiff that he would "review the documents and redact [her]

[SSN] from any documents filed with the court." Id. Significantly,

attorney Carlson agreed to redact plaintiff's SSN even though he

was not ordered by the court to do so. 

Upon review of the refiled, redacted exhibits, Mr. Carlson

"realized" that an exhibit which was not the subject of the court's

order still contained plaintiff's date of birth. Doc. 325, Carlson

Decl'n thereto at 9, ¶ 7. Mr. Carlson avers, however, that he did

not see plaintiff's SSN on any of the filed documents. Id. This

is understandable given, as noted above, that on the face of the

exhibits, it is not evident that plaintiff's SSN appears anywhere

thereon. 

Despite filing redacted versions of the contested exhibits

(docs. 319 and 320), attorney Carlson discovered that the original

versions (docs. 315 and 316) still appeared on the PACER website. 

See id., at 9, ¶ 8. So Mr. Carlson contacted the Clerk of the

Court for the District of Arizona. Mr. Carlson "inquire[d] about

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 327 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

having the docket corrected, [and] inform[ed] the Clerk that the

Court had ordered a redaction of document number 316 . . . , but

that it still appeared on the PACER website." Id. Carlson also

advised the Clerk that he intended to "refile document number 320,

the redacted version of Document number 316, with an additional

redaction [i.e. omission of plaintiff's date of birth]." Id.

The Clerk explained that "[d]ocument[s] . . . 316 and 320 had

been sealed and . . . [Carlson] would have to refile a further

redacted version of those documents." Id. at 9, ¶9. When Carlson

inquired as to whether document 315, "the un-redacted ConsumerInfo

declaration[] could be removed[]" since it had been refiled as

document 319 in its redacted form, the Clerk explained that it

"could not . . . because the Court had not issued an order to

redact that document." Id. at 9, ¶ 10.

Discussion

Based upon the foregoing events, plaintiff is seeking an order

requiring defendants to redact the following "personal data: (1)

birth date[;] (2) driver[']s license number[;] (3) social security

number (ALL digits)[;] (4) home phone number[;] (5) all

addresses[;] [and] (6) all account numbers for OPEN accounts except

for the Capital One and Target accounts[.]" Doc. 322 at 2-3. 

Plaintiff offers no legal basis for obtaining this broad scope of

relief. 

The court will address these requests seriatim.

I. "Protective Order" 

Although styled as a motion for a "protective order," much

like her prior "Motion to Enforce Privacy Rules," what plaintiff

actually is seeking is the redaction of certain "personal

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 327 Filed 10/18/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

identifying information and all account numbers for open accounts

from the [defense] exhibits filed with the[] 8/30/06 Motions for

Summary Judgment and subsequent amended filings." Doc. 322 at 1. 

Given attorney Carlson's actions with respect to redacting

plaintiff's date of birth, this request is moot. Insofar as

redaction of her driver's license and home telephone numbers is

concerned, as the court has previously ruled, there is no basis for

this redaction because this District's Electronic Case Filing

Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual ("Manual") "does not

deem the same to be 'personal identifiers' subject to redaction[.]"

See Doc. 318 at 3. Likewise, for the reasons set forth in its

prior order the court will not require redaction of plaintiff's

account numbers. See id. at 3-4. The court also declines to order

redaction of plaintiff's home address because the Manual requires

redaction of that information in "Criminal Cases Only." Manual at

§ I(E)(1)(e). Obviously this is not a criminal case. 

Turning finally to the issue of redacting plaintiff's social

security number, for the reasons set forth in its September 15,

2006, order, the court will not order redaction of same. See Doc.

318 at 4. The court recognizes that attorney Carlson has indicated

a willingness to redact plaintiff's SSN "from any documents filed

with the court." See Doc. 322, exh. A thereto at 1. However, as

already explained, because it is not readily apparent from the

exhibits where her SSN appears, unless plaintiff provides such

information to Mr. Carlson, obviously he cannot be expected to

redact such information. To conclude, to the extent plaintiff is

seeking a "protective order," the court denies her motion. 

. . .

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 327 Filed 10/18/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

II. Sanctions

Plaintiff is seeking sanctions against defense attorney Marc

Carlson for "filing 'redacted' exhibits including [her] date of

birth and the first 7 digits of her social security number[.]" Id.

The court concludes that attorney Carlson did not engage in any

sanctionable behavior. Indeed, not only did he fully comply with

this court's September 15, 2006 order, but he took additional steps

not required by that order in a good faith effort to address

plaintiff's privacy concerns. Thus, the court denies plaintiff's

motion insofar as she is seeking sanctions against Mr. Carlson. 

III. Extension of Time

 Lastly, plaintiff is seeking a 30 day extension of the time

in which to respond to defendants' summary judgment motions, with

the 30 days running "from the day when compliant redacted exhibits

are filed and all exhibits containing personal data or account

numbers for open accounts with the exception of the Capital One and

Target accounts have been removed." Doc. 322 at 1. Plaintiff

claims that she needs an extension of time because rather than

preparing her response, she "has been dealing with privacy

issues[.]" Id. at 6. She further claims that an extension is

necessary because she "depends on assistance from her readers." 

Id.

Defendants respond that none of the foregoing proffered

reasons for an extension of time provide "a reasonable

justification for failing to file an opposition to the[ir] motions

for summary judgment." Doc. 325 at 4. The court agrees. 

Although the court will grant plaintiff an extension of time

in which to respond to defendants' summary judgment motions, it

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 327 Filed 10/18/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

will not do so on the terms which plaintiff is requesting. Rather,

plaintiff's response to defendants' summary judgment motions shall

be filed on or before 5:00 p.m., November 1, 2006. Plaintiff is

advised that a failure to file a timely response may result in the

granting of defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Conclusion

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Christine Baker's "Motion for

Protective Order, Sanctions and Extension of Time to Respond to the

Experian Information Solutions and ConsumerInfo.Com Motions for

Summary Judgment" (Doc. 322) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Baker's response to the

summary judgment motions previously filed by defendants Experian

and ConsumerInfo.Com shall be filed on or before 5:00 p.m.,

November 1, 2006. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court for the

District of Arizona seal document 315.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 327 Filed 10/18/06 Page 7 of 7