IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GRACE LAWRENCE 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRANS UNION LLC 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

Defendants. 

C.A. NO: 02-CV-4440 

TRANS UNION LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF DECEMBER 11, 2003 ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, states as 

follows in support of its Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Court’s December 11, 

2003 Order, particularly as it relates to punitive damages and the FCRA qualified immunity: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

By Order dated December 11, 2003, this Court denied, in part, Trans Union’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. A crucial issue in the case, and the Order, concerns the reporting and 

reinvestigation of the subject judgment by Trans Union’s public record vendor, Superior 

Information Services, Inc. (“Superior”). Superior originally reported the judgment to Trans 

Union and later reinvestigated plaintiff’s disputes. Initially, Trans Union submitted Declarations 

of cognizant Superior employees. Superior was not deposed until October 29, 2003, when 

plaintiff deposed Nancy Cerbus, the Vice President of Superior. Trans Union promptly moved to 

to supplement the summary judgment record with the Cerbus’ deposition. On November 24, 

2003, this Court granted Trans Union’s Motion to Supplement over plaintiff’s objection. (See 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 1 of 9
2

Dkt. #40) Unfortunately, the Court’s Order, at page 3, footnote 4, erroneously and mistakenly 

states: 

Lawrence reports that Superior has refused to abide by the 

subpoena served upon it. (citation omitted) The details of what 

Superior did or failed to do in investigating Lawrence’s disputes 

are therefore unknown. 

 Trans Union moves instantly for reconsideration of the Court’s December 11, 2003 

Order because, it is respectfully submitted, the Court overlooked the crucial information and 

testimony contained in the Cerbus Deposition.1

 Trans Union moves for reconsideration of the 

Court’s Order on punitive damages and FCRA qualified immunity because the Cerbus 

Deposition demonstrates conclusively that the documentation Lawrence submitted to Trans 

Union was not germane and that Trans Union (through Superior) did in fact reinvestigate 

plaintiff’s dispute and not mislead her abut about the reinvestigation. (See Order, pp. 10-11) 

 In particular, Ms. Cerbus testified that: 1) The City of Philadelphia did, in fact, furnish a 

tape to Superior which included a judgment against plaintiff; 2) Superior in turn furnished the 

information respecting the judgment against plaintiff to Trans Union; 3) the document which 

plaintiff sent to Trans Union with her dispute was not an official court record, but an “odd” and 

“ambiguous” internal municipal court computer terminal print-out which would not be used by 

Superior because Superior is required to conduct its reinvestigations with actual records, not 

computer terminal print-outs. Importantly, Cerbus’ testimony that the document plaintiff 

submitted was not useful or useable renders the decision in Crane v. Trans Union, 2003 WL 

22172346 (E.D.Pa. September 16, 2003) entirely inapposite with respect to a knowing or 

reckless FCRA violation. (See December 11, 2003 Order, p. 11) 

 

1

 The entire Cerbus deposition was attached to Trans Union’s motion to supplement. Docket #37. For the 

Court’s convenience, the relevant portions of the Cerbus deposition are attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 2 of 9
3

II. ARGUMENT 

A. The Document Plaintiff Sent to Trans Union Was Not a 

“Docket” and Was Not Usable By Superior In The 

Reinvestigation Process. 

 Despite plaintiff’s repeated assertions, the subject document was not the “docket” or any 

other official court record. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, pp. 4, 7, 15, Sur-Reply p.2-3). Instead, it was 

an internal screen print from a computer terminal to which neither Superior nor the public has 

access. (See Exhibit “A” p. 155.) Nor was the document a “form” used by the municipal court, 

but instead apparently a print of a screen on which notes and records of events are kept by 

unknown employees. 

 Moreover, when she reviewed the document, Ms. Cerbus found it and its content to be 

“unique”, “odd” and “unusual” because, inter alia, the number of hearings, dispositions and an 

appeal. See transcript, pp. 152 -162): 

 16 A. So I would interpret this as 

 17 meaning that on this date, 7/31/96 

 18 something is unique about this case 

 19 because it doesn't make sense, because it 

 20 says that the case has been withdrawn and 

 21 then also it says that there is a judgment 

 22 for defendant. (Exhibit “A” p.154) 

 Dispositively, Ms. Cerbus testified that the document would not be used by Superior in 

connection with a reinvestigation: 

9 A. I do hear your question. Now, 

10 what you'll need to remember is that when 

11 Nicholas [Palmer, investigator] goes to the court, he pulls the 

12 original copies, so he's not looking at 

13 this. This is what the people at the 

14 court -- they're terminal looks like. 

15 Q. Okay. 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 3 of 9
4

 16 A. So he wouldn't be looking at this 

 17 sheet anyway. 

 18 Q. I understand that. So to answer 

 19 my question, your employees typically 

 20 would not be entering data into your 

 21 system based on this sheet? 

 22 A. No. 

 23 Q. They would be looking at the 

 24 court certified records to enter the data? 

 1 A. Yes. (Exhibit “A” pp. 155-156 (emphasis supplied)) 

 It is respectfully submitted that the Court’s Order on willfulness, based upon Trans 

Union’s “failure” to forward the screen print to Superior, is contrary to the record evidence from 

the only knowledgeable witness on the subject. Further, Plaintiff’s assertions insisting the 

document should have been forwarded are demonstrably irrelevant attorney argument. Superior 

stated it would not use the document and plaintiff presented nothing other than attorney 

argument contending the document should have been sent to Superior. The only testimony of 

record, resulting from Plaintiff’s questioning of the only knowledgeable person, is that the 

document was not needed and would not be used by Superior. Based upon Cerbus’ testimony, 

(supplementing the summary judgment record), plaintiff failed to meet her burden that Trans 

Union’s reinvestigation was unreasonable, much less that Trans Union willfully failed to forward 

a document where that very recipient has now stated the document was not helpful. (See Order, 

p. 11 and Plaintiff’s Original Opposition, p. 36, 40 and Sur-Reply, pp. 2-3) 

 The FCRA does not require documents to be forwarded in connection with 

reinvestigations. Crane stands as the sole case suggesting such a requirement. Under the 

circumstances here, where the document has been determined to be unusable by the entity 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 4 of 9
5

conducting the reinvestigation, Trans Union submits the Crane requirement is not reasonable or 

germane, particularly for purposes of considering willfulness or a reckless FCRA violation. See 

§1681n, which allows a private cause of action for punitive damages against “[a]ny person who 

willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any 

consumer...” Even if the FCRA did require Trans Union to send the computer print-out to 

Superior (which Trans Union maintains it did not), this document would not have in any way 

altered the outcome of the reinvestigation. 

 In addition, the claim of “parroting” is not germane here, because Trans Union’s public 

records vendor went to the source and reviewed the court file. (See Declaration of Nicholas 

Palmer.2

) Mr. Palmer is also an employee of the court system with over twenty (20) years 

experience. This was not a circumstance where a reinvestigation relied upon the automated 

response of a creditor. 

 Finally, the Cerbus testimony cited above confirms that Superior, for Trans Union, in 

fact, goes to the courthouse source to reinvestigate disputes. (Exhibit “A” pp. 155-156) 

Accordingly, Trans Union did not “mislead” plaintiff with respect to the conduct of the 

reinvestigation. 

B. The City of Philadelphia Furnished a Tape to Superior 

Which Included a Judgment Against Plaintiff and Superior 

Furnished The Information Respecting the Judgment Against 

Plaintiff to Trans Union 

 Ms. Cerbus testified unequivocally that in 1996, Superior received an electronic tape 

from the City of Philadelphia which contained a judgment against plaintiff: 

 19 Q. . . . . What additional 

 20 documents did [Luckman] ask you for? 

 

2

 This document was attached to Trans Union’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary 

Judgment as Exhibit “B.” (Docket #29.) For the Court’s convenience, it is attached again hereto as Exhibit “B.” 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 5 of 9
6

 21 A. He asked me for the original 

 22 judgment that we received from the City 

 23 from the tape back in 1996. (p. 42) 

 8 Q. What did he ask you for then with 

 9 respect to this tape? 

 10 A. We received the information from 

 11 the City, directly from the City, the 

 12 judgment information. And he wanted to 

 13 know if I had that information from 1996 

 14 on our database. 

 15 Q. And when you say "tape," that's 

 16 an electronic tape? 

 17 A. Yes. (page 43) 

 2 Q. Okay. How often did you receive 

 3 it back in 1996 by mail? 

 4 A. Monthly. 

 5 Q. So it was a monthly electronic 

 6 tape with judgments that you put on your 

 7 database? 

 8 A. Yes. 

 * * * 

 13 Q. What database was that? 

 14 A. This is our Superior database. 

 15 Q. Does that still exist? 

 16 A. Yes. 

 17 Q. Do you still place judgment 

 18 information that you receive from the City 

 19 of Philadelphia on that Superior database? 

 20 A. Yes. (page 44) 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 6 of 9
7

 23 Q. Are you able to conduct the 

 24 searches on the database? 

 1 A. Yes. 

 2 Q. Did you conduct a search for the 

 3 original information in 1996? 

 4 A. Yes. 

 5 Q. Did you find it? 

 6 A. Yes. 

 7 Q. You did find it? 

 8 A. Yes. (Exhibit “A,” pp.44-45) 

 19 Q. Based on all of the information 

 20 we reviewed here today and the information 

 21 that you've reviewed in your files that we 

 22 still haven't seen, do you know how it 

 23 came about that Trans Union reported a 

 24 $2,951 judgment against Ms. Lawrence on 

 1 her credit report? 

 2 A. Yes. 

 3 Q. You do know? 

 4 A. Yes. 

 5 Q. How did it come about? 

 6 A. Superior collects the information 

 7 and provides it to the credit companies. 

 8 Q. Okay. 

 9 A. So the credit companies would 

 10 then append it to the consumer credit 

 11 report based on the information that 

 12 Superior provides. 

 (Exhibit “A” pp.44-45, 165-166)(emphasis supplied) 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 7 of 9
8

 

 Ms. Cerbus’ testimony directly and effectively contravenes the foundation of plaintiff’s 

Opposition to Trans Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment, to the effect that Trans Union 

never identified “one single document or record to demonstrate the origin or existence of a 

judgment against Ms. Lawrence.” (Opposition, p. 2, 4 and Sur-Reply, pp. 2-3.) Simply put, 

Superior, a reliable source of public record information, furnished Trans Union with information 

that there was a $2,951.00 judgment against plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply concedes: “the Superior Declarations indicate that Superior employs 

the highest standards and provides accurate information regarding public records to TU.” (See 

Sur-Reply, p. 2) Ms. Cerbus’ testimony likewise debunks plaintiff’s “surmise” that the 

“mistake” must have been that of Trans Union, “and not Superior’s conduct.” Id. Plaintiff’s 

unfounded contention amounts to nothing more than a “metaphysical doubt” that a “mistake” 

was made by Trans Union (as opposed to Superior) and that that mistake violated the FCRA. 

Accordingly, Trans Union respectfully submits that Trans Union is entitled to reconsideration, 

and particularly in connection with plaintiff’s punitive damages and state common law claims. 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 8 of 9
9

III. CONCLUSION 

 For all the above reasons and authorities, Trans Union respectfully requests this Court 

reconsider its December 11, 2003 Order denying summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s punitive 

damages and state common law claims. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 SATZBERG, TRICHON, 

 KOGAN & WERTHEIMER, P.C. 

 ___________________________________ 

 MARK E. KOGAN (10186) 

 BRUCE S. LUCKMAN (38636) 

 TIMOTHY P. CREECH (81728) 

 1818 Market St., 30th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 (215) 575-7600; Fax: (215) 575-7688 

 Counsel for Defendant, Trans Union LLC 

DATED: December 18, 2003 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 42-2 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 9 of 9