## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2016 D O RIS D E K OV EN , in d ivid u ally an d on be h alf o fa l l o t he r s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. P LA Z A A S S OC IAT ES, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Di v isi on. No . 05 C3462

—David H . C oar, Judge
. N o. 09

- 2249 K ENT B. K UBE RT, in d ivid u ally an d on be h alf o fa l l o t he r s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. A I D A S S OC IAT ES, doi ng busi ness as P LA Z A A S S OC IAT ES, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Di v isi on. No . 05 C5865

— Ch arl es P. K oc or as, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 12, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 17, 20102 N os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P OSN ER, Cir cu i tJudg e . In thes e t w o cl ose l y r el ate d cl ass acti on s uit s under the F ai r Debt Col l ecti on Pr acti ces A ct, 15 U
. S. C . § § 1 692- 1692 p, wh i ch w e hav e co nsol i dated for d ecision, th e p lai nt iffs com p lai n abou t d un nin g l etters sent them by the w el l

- known P laza A sso ci ate s debt

col l ecti on a gency . I n both case s the di str i ct c ourtente re d su m m ar y j ud gm en t i n f av o r o fPl az a afte r r ej ec ti ngthe su rvey evid en ce p r e p ared by the plaintiff s’ exp ert wi tn es s, Howar d L. Go r do n. Tw o i denti call ett er s s ent t o pla i nti f f D eKoven st ate th at “w e hav e been aut horized to offer you the opp ortuni ty to set tl e thi s acco unt w i th a l um p sum paym ent f or 65% o fthe abov e ba l ance du e, wh i ch is equal to $2 , 459. 22. This off erw i l l be val i d fo r a per i od ofthi rty- fi ve ( 35) days f ro m the date o fthi s l ett er . ” The l ett erto K ubertis si m i l ar but i ncl ud es a par agr aph w hi ch st ate s

— afte r te l l i ngthe re ci pie nt thati fhe noti fi es the a gency withi n 30 days that he “di spute[ s] the val i dity o fthi s d ebt orany port i on ther eof” the ag ency w i l l “o btai n ver i fi cati on o fthe debt o r obt ai n a c opy o fa j ud gm ent a nd m ai l yo u a co py ofsuch j udg m en t o r v er i fi ca ti o n”

— th at “y ou m ay al re ady have sa tis fac to ry p ro of t h a t t h is a c c ou n t is liste d w ith u s in e r r o r . I fs o , p l e a s e s e nd thi s n o t i c e b a c ka l o ng wi t h a c o py ofo ne o fthe f ol l owing to supp or t y our cl ai m : Bankruptcy N oti ce fro m the cour t stat i ng case num berand fi l i ng date, Sat i sf acti on o fJ ud gm ent, Pro ofo fpri or set tl em ent, Lette r f r o m the o r i g i na l Cr edi to r c l ea r i ngy o ur a cc o unt. ” The sui ts com pla i n abo ut the sta tem ent i n the l ett er s that th e o f f ero f se tt l ementi s va l i d f o ro nl y 3 5 day s an d theN os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 3 addi ti o na l s ta te m en t i n th e Kube r t l et te r c o nc er ni ng “sat isf acto ry proof” th at th e acco un t is in error. T he plain t if fs say the fir st state m en t w ou ld be u nd ersto od by m any c on su m er s t o m ean that thi s would be th eir las t c h an c e t o s et tle th e c laim an d th at th e t er m s in i t would b e th e be st they’ d be o f f er ed

— th at in s h or t it w as a fi nal o f f er

— w hen i n f act Pla za A ssoci ate s had been au th ori zed by DeK ove n’s and K ubert ’ s cr edi tor s t o se tt le for les s; th u s t h e o ffer s w e re j u st th e o p en in g b id i n a ne g o ti at i o n. Kube r t co m plai ns i n a ddi ti o n tha t th e r efer en ce t o “ sa ti sf ac to r y pr o of” ofe r r o r i s m i sl ea di ng because it im pli es that to “dis pu te” a cl ai m a debtor m us t fur ni sh“ pr o o f ” to s uppo r t hi s po si ti o n. A s a n or i gi nal m at ter o ne m i ght wonder why a debto r w ho does not deny the val i dity of hi s debt w ou ld be hear d to com pla i n that he had fa il ed to understa nd that i f h e t u r n e d d o wn t h e d e b t c o l l e c t o r ’ s i n i t i a l o f f er he m i ght be ab l e t o s e t t l e the c r e di t o r ’ s v a l i d c l a i m f o r e ven l ess l ate r. Bu t i n m any c ase s, i ncl ud i ng the o nes b ef or e us, the debtor i s not si m ply a w i se guy w ho coul d a f f or d to p ay h i s debt s i n fullbut w oul d prefernotto
. H e is som eone wh o cannot pay the m i n fullbec au se h e has be enhi t by unf o r es ee n medi ca l b il l s o r l o sthi s j o b une xpec te dl y o r i s oth er wi se unde r wat er, wi th o utwant i ng to c he ata ny o ne . He mi g htb e unabl e to p ay 65 pe r ce nt o fa giv en d eb t b u t a b le t o p ay 25 or 3 3 p er c en t, an d if he di d pay thatl ess erper centage h e m ight be abl e t o p r e s e r ve h is c re d it s ta n d in g a n d av oid ba n kr u p tc y. If th r o ug h po o r wor di ngo fthe de btc o l l ec to r ’ s l et te r the deb to r g et s the i m pr es si o n tha t th e i ni ti alo f f eri s th e4 N os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 fi nal o ne, he m ay pay it in fu ll a nd def aul t o n other deb ts , or d ec i de th athi s po si ti o n i s ho pel es s an d decl ar e ba nkruptcy. And so whi l e a deb t co l l ec to r c an, i fa utho r i ze d b y the cre dit orwh om he i s r epres enti ng, m ake his in i ti al o f f er a fin al on e, h e c an n ot p re te n d th at it is fin al if it is n ot, i n t he h o pe tha tthe de b t o r wi l l thi nki tfi na l

. S e e 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 69 2e (10 ); C a m pu z a no -B urg o s v. M idl a nd C redit M a n a gem en t, In c. , 550 F.3d 294 , 299 (3d Cir. 2008); Gos wam iv. A m er ican Collec ti ons Enterpris e, Inc. , 37 7 F. 3d 488, 49 5- 96 (5th C ir. 2004). The p roble m wi thi m pl ement i ngthi s r ul e, a s we e xpl aine d i n E vo ry v . RJM A cqu isitio ns Fu nd ing L.L.C
. , 50 5 F
. 3d 76 9, 7 75

- 76 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , i s th at“ th e se tt l ement proce ss w oul d disinte gr ate i fthe debt co l l ecto r had to di s c l o s e th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o fth e c o n s u me r ’ s r ej e c t i ng h is in itia l offer . I f h e s ay s ‘W e’ll giv e y ou 50 p er c e n t if yo u p a y u s b y M ay 14 , bu t if yo u d on ’t, w e’ll p ro b ab ly offe r yo u the sam e o r eve n bet terdeall ate r, and i fyo u re fuse that, we’l l pro babl y g i ve up and yo u’l l neve r have to pa y a c en t of the deb t y o u o we, ’ the r e wi l l b e no po i nt i n m aki ng o f f er s. ” W e a dd ed that t h is “ concer n can be ade qua te l y a ddr es se d y etthe uns o phi st i cate d c o nsum e r s t i l l b e p r o t e c t e d a g a i ns tr e c e i v i nga f a l s e i mp re ssi o n o fhi s o pti o ns b y the de btc o l l ec to r ’ s i nclud in g w ith th e o f fer th e fo llow in g la n gu ag e: ‘W e a re n ot ob lig at ed to r en ew thi s o f f er . ’ The word ‘obl i g at ed’ i s st r o ng and even the unsophi sti cate d consum erwil l r eal i ze that th er e is a re n ew al p os sib ility bu t t h at it is n ot as su re d .”N os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 5 Pl aza has no t i ncl ud ed thi s safe- harbo r l anguage i n i ts dunn in g l et te r s, b utwe ha d di sc l ai m ed i n E vo rya ny sugge sti on “ th at in the abs ence ofsa f e- harbo r l anguage a d eb t c olle c to r is p er se liab le f o r v iola tin g [t h e F air Debt Col l ecti on Pr acti ces A ct] i fhe m ake s the ki nd o f set tl em ent o f f er that we quoted. W e s ee a pot enti al f or d e c e p t i o n o fth e u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n th o s e o f f e r s b u twe h av e n o w a y of d et er m in in g w h et h er a su fficie n tly l ar ge seg m ent o fthe unsophis ti cate d are l i kel y t o be decei ved to enabl e us to concl ud e that the st atute has been vi ol ate d. Forthat, ev i dence i s r equi re d, the m ost useful sor t be i ng the ki nd o fco nsum ersur vey descr ibed i n Johns on v. Re ve nueM anag e m e ntCorp. , 16 9 F
. 3d 1057, 10 60- 61 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. ” 5 05 F. 3d at 77 6; see al so H ahn v. Tri um ph Part ne rs hips LL C, 557 F. 3d 755, 757 (7th C ir. 2009); Wil li am s v. O SI Educa ti ona l S erv ice s, Inc. , 50 5 F
. 3d 675, 67 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. ( Bu t s ee, f orcr iti ci sm o fthe use o fsur vey ev i den ce , J udg e J o l l y ’ s di ss en ti ngo pi ni o n i n G o nz a lez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 60 0, 60 9-1 1 (5 th C ir. 20 09 ).) I n the prese nt cas es the pl ai nti f f s’ exper t di d con d uct a su rv ey . B u t b ot h j u d ge s c o n sid er ed it in ad m iss ible und erthe sta nd ar ds go ver ni ng the adm i ssion o fsur vey evi dence ( a fo rm of expertevi dence) in fe deralcourt. S ee, e.g ., M uha v . E n coreRecei vable M ana gem ent, Inc. , 55 8 F
. 3d 62 3, 62 5-2 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); P eace ablePlanet, Inc. v. Ty, Inc
. , 36 2 F .3d 98 6, 99 2 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); U nite d State s v. C urt in , 58 8 F.3 d 9 93 , 9 97 -98 (9 th C ir. 20 09 ); Vail Ass oc i at e s , Inc . v. Ve ndTel

- Co. , Lt d. , 51 6 F
. 3d 8 53 , 86 4 n. 8 ( 10th Cir
. 20 08) ; se e gener al l y F ed. R. Evi d. 702. T h e s u rv ey st aff in te rv iew ed 16 0 s h op p er s a t a m all in a Chi cago su b urb. H al fwere shown the l ett erto Ku ber t;6 N os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 th e o th er h alf

— th e m embe rs o fthe c o nt r o l g r o up

— w ere sh ow n the l et te r min us the “ va l i d f o r a pe r i o d” an d “sat i sf acto ry pro of” parag ra phs. There was no nee d to s ho w e i t he r g r o up t he l e t t e r s t o De Ko v e n, s i nc e t hey d iffer ed m a t er ially from th e le tt er to K u b er t o n ly in lac kin g t h e re fer en c e t o “ sa tis fac to ry p ro of.” Aft erthe s ur ve y r espo nde nt s r ea d the l et te r ( ei th erthe surve y l ett er or the contr ol l ett er, depend i ng on w h i ch gr oup a r esp on d en t had bee n pla ced i n), theywere fi rs t as ke d q u es tio n s ab ou t th e lett er or ally , th en g i v e n ora lly t wo a ns we r s t o c ho o s e b e t we e n, a nd fi na l l y han de d a car d w i th t he answers pri nted on i t a nd as ked to pi ck one ofthem

. The car ds al so conta i ned a thi rd answer op tion, w hich had n o t b een pres en ted oral ly: “D O N ’T KN OW / N OT S URE. ” The c r i ti ca l que st i o n, a sk ed ofthe r es po nde nt s i n b o thgr o ups , was whatthe r es po nde nt th o u g h t wo u l d h a p p e n i f h e o r s h e d i d n ’ t a c c e p tt he o f f e r i n t he l e t ter

— w oul d i t be r enewed o r extended, o r w as th i s th e l as t ch an ce t o g eta di sc o unto f fthe bal ance owed ? Ofthe r esp ond en ts i n the s ur ve y g r o up, 5 9 per ce nt th ou gh t th e o ffer w as fina l, 26 p e r c e n t t h ou gh t t h at it w ou ld b e r e ne w ed or ex ten d ed , and 15 pe rcen t d idn ’t know or weren’ t s ure. The co rr espondi ng per centag es i n the c o nt r o l g r o up wer e 24 pe r ce nt, 1 0 per ce nt, a nd 66 perce nt. These sta ti sti cs m ay see m st ro ngl y t o supp or t the hypothesi s that the l ett erto Ku b er t w as m i sl ea di ng . A nd l i kewis e i fwe tr ea t the “don’ t know /no t su r e” r es po nde nt s as ha vi ng c o r r ec tl y i nt er pr et ed th e l ett erto l ea ve u n c er tai n w hetherthe off erwas fi nalo rN os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 7 woul d b e r en ewe d; f o r the r e w as no th i ngmis l ea di ng about the l ett eri f i nter prete d s o because , as w e sai d, a debt col l ecto r i s no t r equi re d to re vealhi s neg oti ati ng st ra teg y. The n 7 6 per ce nto fthe r es po nde nt s i n the c o nt r o l g r o up (the 10 pe r ce ntwho tho ug htthe o f f erno nfi na l a nd the 66 perce nt wh o didn’tkno w wh etheri t would be r enew ed) cor re ctly i nter prete d the l ett ertheywere gi ven t o re ad, co m pared to o nl y 4 1 per cent ofthe respondents w h o re ad th e re al let te r to K u b er t. Buta s th e di st r i ctj udg es f o und, the m em be r s o fthe contr olgr oup m ay w el l have bee n confused by the o m i ss i o n f r o m t h e c r o p p e d l e t t e r o f a n y r e f e r e n c e t o a de a dl i ne. H ow coul d an off erbe exte nd ed i fit had no deadl i ne? T h e s u r v e y s h o u l d ha v e i n c l u d e d i n th e l e t t e r s h o wn t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p th e s a f e - h a rb o r l a n g u a g e i n E v o ry( “ We ar e no t o bl i g at ed to r en ew thi s o f f er”) ors o m e va r i an t th er eo f

. I fthe 6 6 per ce nto fthe r es po nde nts who an swe r ed “do n’ t k no w/n o t su re” a r e ex cl ude d, o n the g roun d tha t th eymay wel l ha ve b ee n c o nfus ed by the cro pp ed l ett er, then the r esul ts of t h e su rv ey do not su ppo r t th e pl ai nt i f fs’ clai m . Ofthe 3 4 per ce nto fthe r es po nde nt s i n the c o nt r o l g r o up who e i th er th o ug htthe off erwas fi nal ( 24 perce nt) o r thought i t would be re new ed ( 10 perce nt) , 71 per cent ( 24 perce nt di vi ded by 34 perce nt) tho ught the o f f erwas fi nal

. In the s urve y gr oup, i fthe don’tkno w /no t s ure 15 perce nt i s s et asi de, a s l i ghtl y lo w erper centag e o fr esponde nts

— 69 pe r ce nt ( 59 perce nt, the tot al wh o thought i t fi nal, d ivid ed by 85 p ercent [ 59 perce nt pl us 26 per cent] , the sum o ftho se w ho thought i t fi nal and thos e who thought i t would be8 N os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249

r e ne we d)

— th ou gh t t h e o f f e r fina l. T h e im p lica tio n is that the con tr ol l ett erwas m o reco nfusi ng tha n the actual surve y l ett er

— t ha tb y a ddi ngthe “ v a l i d f o r a p e r i o d” parag ra ph that the pl ai nti f f s cl aim confuse s co nsum er s, Pl az a Asso ci at es r edu ce d c o ns um erc o nfus i o n! W e decl i ne to draw thi s i nfe re nce, however, bec ause the c ontr oll ett er w as no g oo d and m ay have confused re spondents be si des thos e w ho a nsw er ed “don’ t know /no t sure . ” Ther ef or e the sur vey w as n o goo d, as the j ud ges foun d

. I t was no g o o d f o r a no th err ea so n: i fthe don ’t know/not sure r espondents a re el i m i nated, the contr ol g r o up s hr i nk s to 2 7 per so ns . De te r m i ni ng the min i m um sam ple si ze f ro m wh i ch r el i abl e ex tr ap ol ati ons can be m ad e to the sam p led p op ulation is tricky. Floyd J. Fow ler, J r. , Su rvey Res e ar ch M e t hods 45 ( 4th e d. 2008 )
. But 27 i s t oo sm al l a sam ple , e sp eci al l y when one co nsi ders the m i sm atch b etween the popu l ati on t o be s am ple d

— p eo p le w ho rece ive du nn ing letters from d e b t coll ectors

— an d the s am ple , wh i ch co nsi ste d ofm al l patr ons none o f w hom , f oral l o ne kno w s, m ay ever h ave re cei ved such a le tt er . Th e s am p le d r a w n b y t h e p lain tiffs ’ ex p er t is w h at is ca lled a “c on ve n ien c e” sa m p le

— conve ni ent t o the sam ple r

— a s d i s t i n c tfr o m a “ r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ” s a mp le

— r e pr e s e nt a t i v e o fthe p o pu l a t i o n s a mpl e d. The s ur ve y was b ad f o r s ti ll a no th err ea so n: the o m i ss i o n o fthe “ do n’ t k no w/n o t su r e” opt ion i n the or al questi oni ng. The o m i ssi on was l i kel y t o m ake r espondent s g u ess

— though the co ntro l l ett erwas so c o nfusi ngtha t m o sto fthe r es po nde nt s i n the c o nt r o l g r o up m ay ha v e g r a s pe d tha to pt i o n a s a dr o wni ngma n g r a s psN os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 9 at a str aw . Cf. Si r Thom as M or e, A D ia lo gu e of C o m fo rt agai ns tTr i b ul at i on , ch. 3 ( 1534 ). A pro perl y des igned co ntro l gr oup i s v i tali n a s urve y i nt en ded to r ev ea l whethe r a de btc o l l ec to r i s co nfus i ng d eb to rs . C f. Free v. P eters , 12 F. 3d 700, 705 -0 6 ( 7th Cir. 19 93 ); Penney v. Pr axai r, Inc . , 116 F.3d 330 , 333-34 (8th C ir. 19 97 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Agui l ar, 883 F. 2d 662, 706-08 (9th C ir. 1989 ). Th e d ebt coll ector ca n’t be blam ed i f con su m ers d on ’t u n d er st an d h is d u n n in g let te r u n les s h e s h ou ld ha ve a d d ed or su btrac ted som eth ing to m ake it cl earer. The pl ai nt i f fthus ha s “t o s ho w tha t th e ad d iti o na l l an guage o fthe l ett er s unacce ptabl y inc reases the l eve l o f confusi on; m any unso phist i cate d consum er s w oul d be confused eve n i fthe l ett er s they r ecei ved co n ta ined no th i ngmor e th ana s ta te m en t o fthe de bta nd the s ta tu
tor y no ti ce. ” Jo hn son v. R even ue M a na gem ent C o rp ., sup ra , 169 F.3d at 1060 (em p ha sis i n origi na l)

. T h e p lain tiffs co n te n d th at P laz a A ss o c i at es sh ou ld have del ete d the “v al i d f or ” parag ra ph. To pro ve thi s they co nduc te d a su r ve y . The su r ve y , i f i t pr o ve s any th i ng ( w e don’ t thi nk i t pr ove s a nythi ng) , pro ve s th e o pp osi te o fth e i r c l a i m. Kub e r t ’ s c ha l l e ng e t o the “ s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o o f ” p a r a g r a ph al so pr o duce d c o nfus i o n i n the c o ntr o l g r o up. Ofthe re spondents i n the surve y g ro up , 66 per cent op i ned that the r eci pie n t of th e l ett erco uld notdi spute the debt wi t ho utp r o o fa nd 2 6 p e r c e nttha t the r e c i pi e ntc o ul d; o nl y 8 pe r ce nto pte d f o r do n’ t k no w/n o t sure. Buti n the c on tr ol gr oup, 20 per cent sai d the r eci pie nt o fthe l ett er co ul d no t di spu te the de btw i th o utpr o o f, 2 4 per ce nt10 N os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 th at he cou ld, and 56 p ercen t d idn ’t know or w eren ’t su re . The co nfusi on pro babl y s tem m ed f ro m the om i ssi on of any cl ue i n the contr oll ett erto how one “ disputes ” a debt. I fwe i gnor e don’ t know /no t s ure, the surve y r esul ts f avor Kube r t: 7 2 per ce nto fthe s ur ve y g r o up ( 66 pe r ce nt divi ded by 92 [ 66 plus 26] per cent) thou ght the debto r coul d no t dispute the debt w i thout sat i sf acto ry p ro of s, co m par ed to o nl y 4 5 p er ce nto fthe c o nt r o l g r o up (20 pe rcen t d ivi d ed by 44 p erc e n t ). B ut the resu lts are vi ti at ed by the abs en ce fr o m the l et te r re ad by the con trol grou p of an y reference to “p r o of. ” Th e m em bers ofthe contr olgr oup w er e j ust ask ed w hetherthe debtor coul d dispute the debt “w ith ou t pr oo f

. ” S i nce the l ett er they re ad did notco ntai n the w or d “pro of, ” i t was na tu ral for th em to assu m e tha t the thing th e w ord de no t e s wa s n o tr e qu i r e d. The questi on a ske d the r esponden ts i n the surve y gr ou p w as al so m i sl eadi ng. They were as ked wh ether the y c o ul d d i s pu t e the de b ti fthe y di dn ’ th a v e “ s a ti sf act o r y p ro of.” T o a n sw er in t h e a ffirm at ive w ou ld im p ly th at on e can disp ut e a de b t w it h un satisfactory p roof. W hat is unsati sf acto ry pro ofo fnoto w i ng a debt? A re sp on d en t w ou l d n at u ra lly an d w e t h in k c or re c tly b el i eve thati fhe doe s no t hav e s ati sf acto ry pro ofo fnot ow i n g t h e d eb t, th e d eb t c olle c to r w ill no t a c c ep t h is denia l o fo w i ng i t. K ubertar gues that a co nsum ercan dispute a debt f or “n o re as on at all,” a n d th at is tr u e, D eSa ntis v . C o m p u ter C re dit, Inc. , 26 9 F.3d 159, 16 2 ( 2d Cir

. 20 01)

— provi dedN os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 11

o ne unde r st an ds th at“ di spu te ” i s a te r m o fa r t i n the F ai r Deb t Col l ec ti o n Pr ac ti ce s Act. I t m ea ns th at th e co ns um erc an, w itho utg i vinga r ea so n, r equi r e th atthe d ebt collector verify the existen c e of th e d ebt be fore m aking furt he r effor ts to coll ect i t. 15 U
. S. C
. §§ 1692g (a)( 4), ( b) ; se e B a rtlett v. H eibl, 128 F.3d 497, 498-99 (7th Cir. 1997). This w as not expla i ned to the r espon d en ts . I fafterr ece i vi ngv er i fi ca ti o n o fthe d ebt, the c o ns um erha s no gr ounds f or conte sti ng i t, the f act that he “dis pu te d ” it w i l l notcance l hi s l i abi l i ty. I fPl az a Asso ci at es ’ l et te r i s m i sl ea di ng, i t i s m isl eadi ng i n c o nt a i ni nga n i nc o mpl e t e l i s to fs a t i s f a c t o r y pro of s. Bu t Kubert does not l i st add i ti onalpro of s that he thi nks a debt c olle cto r w oul d be r equi re d to accept. The “s ati sf acto ry pro of” chal lenge f ai l s a l so because o fthe i nadequacy o f t h e contr oll ett erand, as bef or e, the om i ssi on of the “don’ t know /no t s ure” o pti on fro m the or al questi oni ng o fthe re spondents. Sui ts und erthe Fai r Debt Col l ection P ra cti ces A ct hav e re peatedl y com e t o gr i efbec ause offl aw s i n the surve ys con d uc ted by the plaintiff s’ e x p erts (often M r. Go rd on). M uha v. Encore R ec ei vable M ana g em en t, Inc. , sup ra , 55 8 F.3 d at 62 5-2 6; Jackson v. M idland CreditM ana gem ent, Inc. , 445 F. S up p. 2d 10 15, 10 20- 21 (N .D. I l l

. 20 06) , affi rm ed und erthe nam e Evo ry v. RJ M Ac q u i s i t i on s F u n di ng L.L. C. , s upra ; Jackson v. National Action Fi nancial Se rvic es, Inc. , 44 1 F. Su p p . 2 d 8 77, 8 82 (N .D . I ll. 20 06 ); H e r nan dez v. At t e nt i on, LLC, 4 29 F
. S up p. 2d 91 2, 91 6- 18 ( N
. D. I l l

. 20 05)
. Dis tr i ct j ud ges m ay w ant t o consi der e xerci si ng the cl ear l y a uthoriz ed bu t r ar ely ex er c ise d op tio n of ap p oin tin g t h eir o wn ex per t to conducta s ur ve y i n F DCPA c as es . F ed. R.12 N os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 E vid . 706 (a); G enera l E lectric C o . v. Join er, 522 U
. S. 136, 14 9- 50 (19 97 ) (B re ye r, J., co n c u rrin g); In re H igh Fruc to se C o rn Syr up Ant i t r us tLi t igat i on , 295 F. 3d 651, 665 ( 7th Cir. 2002); Indianapo li s C olts, Inc. v. M et ropolit an B alti m o re Fo otball C lub Ltd. Pa rt nership , 34 F. 3d 410, 414-15 (7th Cir. 1994); Wal ke rv. Am e r i can Hom eSh i e l d L ong Ter m D i s ab i l i ty Pl an , 180 F. 3d 1065 , 10 70- 71 ( 9th Ci r. 19 99) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. M icro sof t C o rp . , 147 F.3d 935 , 955 n. 22 ( D .C . C ir . 1998). J ud ges can ass ure them sel ves ofthe expert ’ s neutr al i ty by ( as i n arbi tr at ion ) as ki ng the part i es’ o w n expert s t o nom i nate a thi rd exper t t o be the co urt
- appoint ed expert

. In reH igh Fr uc t os e Corn Syr up Ant i t r us tLi t igat i on , sup ra , 295 F.3 d at 66 5; Ind ia na po lis C o lts, Inc
. v. M etrop o lita n B a ltim o re Foo tb all C lub Ltd. Pa rt nership , s up ra , 34 F. 3d at 414- 15; M anu al f

orCom pl e x L i t igat i on § 1 1
. 5 1 , p p. 1 1 2

- 1 3 ( 4 t h e d. 2004 ) ; D an i elL. Rubi nfe l d, “Econom etr i cs i n the Courtro om , ” 8 5 C o lum . L. R ev . 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 9 5

- 9 7( 1 9 8 5 )
. A g e n ui ne neutra l sho uld be ea sy to fi nd i n the field o fsur vey r es e a r c h b e c a u s e f e w s u r v e y r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e s e t t l e d v i e ws ab o utde btc o l l ec ti o n. The deci si on to appoint an expert i s w i thi n th e d i scr eti on o fthe tr i al j u d ge, o fco urse , and w e m er el y i nvi te consi derat i on o fthe possibi l i ty ofusi ng thi s proce du ra l devi ce t o i m prove j ud icia l underst anding ofsur vey m etho dol ogy . A l though the j ud ge i s a uthor i zed to al l oca te the c osto fthe cour t-ap poi nted expertbet w een the parti es, Fed. R. Evid. 706(b) , w e do not sugge st th at the defendant shoul d be m ade to co ntribute t o the c ost ofa surve y c onducted by th e neutra l exper t, f ori n case s und e r the F a i r De b tCo l l e c t i o n Pr a c t i c e s Ac tde f e ndants r ar el y c o n d u c tth e i r o wn s u r v e y s b u ta r e c o n t e n tt o p o i nt o utthe defi cie nc i es i n pl ai nt i f f s’ s ur ve y s. A su r ve y c o n-N os. 09

- 2016, 09

- 2249 13 duct ed by a ne ut r ali s a po ss ibl e al te r na ti ve t o the oft en unedifyi ng spect acl e o fa batt l e o fparty- appoint ed expert s. T h e d ism iss al of t h e s u its is A FFI RMED .

3- 17- 10