UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Sky Federal Credit Union, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02114

Honorable Edmond E. Chang

Fair Isaac Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, December 5, 2023:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: ) (1.) On review of the

Credit Bureaus' discovery−stay motion [187], and the responses and replies, R. 200, 201,

212, the right balance is to move forward with discovery as to the Credit Bureaus as if

they were non−party discovery respondents. Too many facts must be uncovered as to

FICO to simply block all discovery to be obtained from the Credit Bureaus, but at the

same time there should be some recognition of the prior dismissal. This does mean that

although the Credit Bureaus are alleviated of the burdens of being treated as parties for

purposes of discovery right now, they also get none of the benefits or protections of

parties. The stay motion is thus granted in part. (2.) On review of the status report, R. 218,

the Plaintiffs' responses to the dismissal motions are now due on 01/16/2024; the defense

replies are now due on 02/12/2024. FICO's motion [223] to seal certain exhibits (not the

brief) is granted provisionally. The Court will again review the propriety of sealing when

evaluating the underlying motion. (3.) The unopposed extension motion [189] to file

motions to strike FICO's affirmative defenses is granted to 12/13/2023, for both the Direct

Purchasers and the Indirect Purchasers. The Court points out that there is a split in

authority over whether defenses and affirmative defenses are held to the same pleading

standard as claims, particularly in light of the textual differences between, on the one

hand, Rule 8(a) (requiring a statement of the claim "showing... entitle[ment] to re−lief"),

and on the other hand Rules 8(b) ("state in short and plain terms its defenses to each

claim") and 8(c) ("affirmatively statequot; affirmative defenses). This Court's view is that

the plausibility−pleading standard does not apply to defenses and affirmative defenses.

RBG Plastic, LLC v. Webstaurant Store, 2020 WL 7027601, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30,

2020). Also, in most cases, parties refrain from moving (or limit the motions) to strike

affirmative defenses because, in most cases, the affirmative defenses do not make any

appearance in the case and no dispute arises from them. To be sure, there might be

occasions where it is appropriate to make the motion because doing so will concretely

prevent unwarranted discovery or otherwise expedite the case. But in most cases the

motion hinders rather than helps. (4.) Peter Barile III's motion to withdraw as counsel for

Plaintiff Sky Federal Credit Union [226] is granted. (5.) The tracking status hearing of

12/08/2023 is reset to 03/15/2024 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is

required, the case will not be called). The parties (including the Credit Bureaus) shall file

a joint status report on 03/07/2024. Emailed notice (mw, )

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 227 Filed: 12/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:4770
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 227 Filed: 12/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:4771