Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_03-cv-00525/USCOURTS-azd-3_03-cv-00525-4/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-PCT-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Fair, Isaac and Company,

Incorporated, et al.

)

Defendants. ) )

On August 30, 2006, one of the defendants herein, Experian

Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian"), filed a motion for

summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, or, in the

alternative, "for partial summary judgment in its favor on

Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. . . ,

the Arizona Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Plaintiff's claim for

punitive damages." Doc. 308 at 1. In support of its motion, among

other things, Experian filed a Declaration by Kimberly Hughes. 

Five exhibits are attached to that Declaration. The first three

exhibits are plaintiff's February 4, 2003, February 10, 2003 and 

May 5, 2003 Experian "Personal Credit Report[s][.]" Doc. 316, exhs. 

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 318 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 5
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 -

1, 2 and 3 thereto. Exhibits four and five are "Investigation

Results" which Experian "prepared for" plaintiff on November 10,

2005, and April 11, 2006, respectively. Id., exhs. 4 and 5

thereto. 

By motion dated September 12, 2006, plaintiff pro se Christine

Baker is requesting that those exhibits be "immediately and

permanently removed from public access[.]" Doc. 317 at 1 and 2. 

Plaintiff bases this motion upon her belief that the Hughes'

Declaration exhibits contain "identifying information" in violation

of this District's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies

and Procedures Manual ("Manual"). Id. at 2. On this motion

plaintiff Baker is further requesting to "be provided with the

identity of any PACER users who may have accessed her credit

reports[]" by viewing the five exhibits to the Hughes' Declaration. 

Id. at 1 and 3. 

Discussion

I. "Policy Manual"

Section I(E) of the Manual governs redaction of court filings

based upon privacy concerns. More specifically, subsection 1

states that "[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, parties must

refrain, or must partially redact where inclusion is necessary, the

following personal identifiers from all pleadings and documents

filed with the court including exhibits thereto[.]" Policy Manual

at 4, § I(E)(1) (emphasis added). In accordance with the Manual,

"[t]he responsibility for redacting personal identifiers rests

solely with the parties." Id. at 5, § I(E)(1). Among the

enumerated "personal identifiers" are social security numbers,

dates of birth, and "[f]inancial account numbers[.]" Id. at 4-5, §

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 318 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 5
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 -

I(E)(1)(a), (c) and (d). 

A careful review of the five exhibits (totaling 70 pages) to

the Hughes' Declaration shows that plaintiff's telephone number and

Arizona Driver's License number each appear once therein. The

court declines to order redaction of those numbers, however,

because the Manual does not deem the same to be "personal

identifiers" subject to redaction under section I(E)(1). 

On the other hand, in violation of section I(E)(1)(c) of the

Manual, plaintiff's full date of birth does appear in two of the

exhibits to the Hughes' Declaration. See Doc. 316, exh. 4 thereto

at 13; and exh. 5 thereto at 15. That section expressly provides

that "[i]f an individual's date of birth must be included . . . ,

only the year should be used." Id. at 5, §I(E)(1)(c) (emphasis

added). Whether plaintiff's date of birth "must be included" in

these exhibits is doubtful. However because it has been included,

in accordance with the Manual, the court orders redaction of the

month and date of plaintiff's birth. 

Turning next to the "financial account numbers" contained in

the Hughes' Declaration exhibits, subsection I(E)(1)(d) of the

Manual states that "[i]f [such] numbers are relevant, only the last

four digits . . . should be used." Id. at 5, § I(E)(1)(d)

(emphasis added). In the present case Experian did the opposite. 

When listing plaintiff's "Credit items," Experian set forth the

"Source/Account number (except [the] last few digits)." See, e.g.,

Doc. 316, exh.1 at 3 (emphasis added). Experian's omission of the

"last few digits" of each of plaintiff's financial account numbers

serves the Manual's purpose in terms of protecting plaintiff's

privacy by not disclosing any financial account number in full. 

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 318 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 5
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 -

Thus, the court will not order redaction of any of the 129 account

numbers contained in the Hughes' Declaration exhibits.

As an aside, the court observes that nowhere in any of these

five exhibits does plaintiff's social security number appear. In

fact, on each of the five exhibits which are the subject of this

motion Experian plainly states that "[a]s a security precaution,

[it] did not list the Social Security number that" Experian was

given when it was "contacted[.]" Id., exh. 1 at 11, exh. 2 at 14,

exh. 3 at 11, exh. 4 at 13, and exh. 5 at 15 (emphases added). 

Thus, insofar as protecting the disclosure of plaintiff's social

security number, Experian has provided even greater protection than

the Manual which requires "only [that] the last four . . . digits

of that number . . . be used." Manual at 4, § I(E)(1)(a).

II. PACER Users

The last issue which this motion presents is whether the court 

should provide plaintiff "with the identity of any PACER users who

may have accessed her credit reports[]" by viewing the exhibits to

the Hughes' Declaration. Doc. 317 at 1. The court has been

advised by the Operation's Manager for the Clerk's Office of the

District of Arizona that it cannot be ascertained whether any PACER

users may have viewed these exhibits. Given the impossibility of

providing this relief, the court denies the same. 

 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Christine Baker's Motion to

Enforce Privacy Rules and to Remove Credit Reports Filed by

Defendant Experian Information Systems (Doc. 317) is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part. More specifically, it is ORDERED that

defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. redact the month and

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 318 Filed 09/18/06 Page 4 of 5
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 -

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

Declaration (Doc. 316). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all future filings in this

action defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. shall fully

comply with the Manual's privacy section, including the format in

which financial account numbers and dates of birth should be

provided. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Christine Baker's motion

(Doc. 317) is DENIED to the extent she is seeking "the identity of

any PACERS users who may have accessed her credit reports." 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that in all other respects plaintiff

Christine Baker's motion (Doc. 317) is DENIED. 

DATED this 15th day of September, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 318 Filed 09/18/06 Page 5 of 5