Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05057/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05057-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

PAULA GARNER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5057

TARGET NATIONAL BANK DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 9th day of November, 2005, come on for

consideration defendant’s Motion For Protective Order (document #8)

and plaintiff’s Motion To Compel (document #10 and #14), and from

said motions, and the responses thereto, the Court finds and orders

as follows:

1. Plaintiff brings this claim under the Fair Credit

Reporting Act (“FCRA”), with pendant state claims for defamation

and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She alleges that

she returned to the seller an item she had charged to her Target

National Bank Visa account, and when the charge for the item

appeared on her Target Visa, she disputed it. She claims that in

connection with this dispute, her credit history was incorrectly

reported and she was harassed by defendant’s employees in their

attempt to collect the charge. She seeks injunctive, declaratory,

compensatory, and punitive relief.

The matter is set for trial on January 9, 2006, and discovery

was scheduled to conclude on November 7, 2005. The pending motions

have to do with discovery disputes.

2. Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order seeks two types

Case 5:05-cv-05057-JLH Document 16 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

of protection:

* an order that the deposition of its corporate

representative be taken, not in Springdale, Arkansas, as

requested by plaintiff, but “only in Minneapolis,

Minnesota, or another agreed upon place”; and

* an order preventing plaintiff from discovering its

general policies and procedures relating to customer

disputes, how it trains its employees with regard to

customer disputes, and information about customers other

than plaintiff (identified as “topics 7-9 and 13-17 of

the Notice To Take 30(b)(6) Deposition Duces Tecum).

3. Plaintiff, for her part, seeks to compel responses to

interrogatories and requests for production of documents, as

follows:

* information about defendant’s witnesses and evidentiary

documents (Interrogatories 3-5);

* information about the investigative activity of

defendant’s employees who undertook to investigate

plaintiff’s disputed charge (Interrogatories 6, 8, 9);

* the identity of those to whom certain credit reports

about plaintiff were made (Interrogatories 10, 11);

* information about defendant’s general policies and

procedures relating to consumer disputes, training

information, and information about customers other than

Case 5:05-cv-05057-JLH Document 16 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

plaintiff (Interrogatories 13-16 and 19-25);

* defendant’s phone records reflecting calls made to

plaintiff (Request for Production 13); and

* information relating to defendant’s net worth, which

would be relevant in the event a punitive damage claim

were to be submitted to the jury (Requests for Production

14, 15).

4. The applicable rules of procedure and evidence establish

a broad scope for discovery. F.R.C.P. 26(b) provides, in relevant

part, that [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.

. . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.” Under F.R.E. 401, information

is relevant if it tends “to make the existence of any fact that is

of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or

less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

5. Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that defendant

willfully, as well as negligently, failed to comply with 15 U.S.C.

§1681s-2(b), which addresses the responsibilities of those who

furnish information to consumer credit reporting agencies. That

statute provides, in relevant part, that after receiving notice of

a dispute about the completeness or accuracy of information

provided to a consumer credit reporting agency, a furnisher of

Case 5:05-cv-05057-JLH Document 16 Filed 11/09/05 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

information must: 

(a) conduct an investigation;

(b) review all relevant information provided by the customer;

(c) report the results of the investigation to the consumer

reporting agency;

(d) if the investigation reveals that incomplete or

inaccurate information has been provided, report this to

all other consumer reporting agencies to which

information was furnished (if those agencies compile and

maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis); and

(e) if the disputed information is inaccurate or incomplete

or cannot be verified, modify, delete or block future

reporting of the disputed information.

6. In support of its Motion For Protective Order, defendant

contends that only its investigation of plaintiff’s particular

dispute -- not its policies and procedures relating to customer

disputes in general –- is relevant to the case at bar. As

defendant points out, there is no allegation in the Complaint that

defendant failed to comply with its own internal policies and

procedures, only that it failed to comply with the requirements of

the statute, i.e., failed to investigate and correct what plaintiff

contends is erroneous information. 

Defendant also argues that the Court should deny plaintiff

discovery on the contested information as a matter of public

Case 5:05-cv-05057-JLH Document 16 Filed 11/09/05 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

policy, because the policies and procedures “relat[e] to identity

theft and fraud” and would “become less effective as more people

learn about them and can therefore devise methods of defeating

them.” 

Plaintiff counters that she has alleged willful misconduct,

and that whether defendant followed its own internal policies and

procedures is relevant to the issue of willfulness. She also

disputes that issues of identity theft and fraud are involved, and

contends that defendant’s public policy concerns can be alleviated

by redaction or protective order.

The Court believes that the content of defendant’s policies

and procedures with regard to the investigation of disputed charges

is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence,” given the allegations of the Complaint. If it can be

shown that defendant failed to follow its own policies and

procedures in the investigation it carried out with regard to

plaintiff’s disputed charge, that fact would certainly bear on the

issue of willfulness. The Court also is not persuaded that

production of this information will undermine defendant’s ability

to detect and prevent identity theft or credit card fraud. The

Motion For Protective Order will therefore be denied.

7. With regard to plaintiff’s Motion To Compel, the Court

finds the following items to be discoverable, and will direct that

the information be provided to plaintiff forthwith:

Case 5:05-cv-05057-JLH Document 16 Filed 11/09/05 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

* information about defendant’s witnesses and evidentiary

documents (Interrogatories 3-5);

* information about the investigative activity of

defendant’s employees who undertook to investigate

plaintiff’s disputed charge (Interrogatories 6, 8, 9);

* the identity of those to whom certain credit reports

about plaintiff were made (Interrogatories 10, 11); 

* information about defendant’s general policies and

procedures relating to consumer disputes, training

information, and information about customers other than

plaintiff (Interrogatories 13-16 and 19-25); and

* defendant’s phone records reflecting calls made to

plaintiff (Request for Production 13)(which may be

redacted to show only information relevant to plaintiff’s

claim).

With regard to the request for information relating to

defendant’s net worth, which would be relevant in the event a

punitive damage claim were to be submitted to the jury (Requests

for Production 14, 15), the Court agrees with the reasoning in

Curtis v. Partain, 272 Ark. 400, 614 S.W.2d 671 (1981), overruled

on other grounds, Lupo v. Lineberger, 313 Ark. 315, 855 S.W.2d 293

(1993), that a claim for punitive damages is a serious matter, and

such information should not be made available unless clearly

relevant. To the extent that the Motion To Compel seeks that

Case 5:05-cv-05057-JLH Document 16 Filed 11/09/05 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

information, it will be denied.

8. With regard to the location of defendant’s 30(b)(6)

witness, the parties rely on Thompson v. Sun Oil Co., 523 F.2d 647

(8th Cir. 1975), holding that “a district court has great

discretion in designating the location of taking a deposition.”

Neither party has offered particularly cogent arguments for her, or

its, preferred location. The Court reasons, however, that if the

deposition is to be taken in Minnesota, both plaintiff’s and

defendant’s attorneys will have to travel there, whereas if the

deposition is held in Arkansas, only one person, the deponent, will

need to travel. It appears to be an economy to hold the deposition

here. The Court thus finds that the deposition should be scheduled

in Arkansas, and that the parties should share the expenses of

bringing the deponent here for that purpose, thus sharing in both

the cost and the savings of doing so.

9. Finally, the Court notes that plaintiff has asked that

the discovery deadline in this matter be “relaxed” to allow it to

take the deposition of defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness beyond the

November 7, 2005, cut-off date. Defendant agrees with this

request, and indicates that it wants to take the plaintiff’s

deposition out of time.

While the Court is not pleased that these matters have come up

so close to trial, it finds the requests have merit under the

circumstances. It will, however, direct that both depositions be

Case 5:05-cv-05057-JLH Document 16 Filed 11/09/05 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

scheduled and completed as soon as reasonably possible, and

cautions the parties that they are to be taken in sufficient time

so as not to delay the scheduled trial of this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion For Protective

Order (document #8) is denied. The parties are, however, directed

to share the expense of transporting, feeding and lodging

defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness for the purpose of taking her

deposition in Arkansas.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion To Compel

(document #10 and #14) is granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is denied insofar as it seeks to compel production

of information relating to defendant’s net worth.

The motion is granted in all other respects, and defendant is

directed to forthwith furnish plaintiff with the information

sought.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the depositions of defendant’s

30(b)(6) witness, and of plaintiff, be scheduled as soon as

reasonably possible, and in any event in time that the trial of

this matter will not be delayed. In all other respects, the

Court’s Scheduling Order remains in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05057-JLH Document 16 Filed 11/09/05 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>