UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID HOERCHLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 20 CV 3310

District Judge Lee

Magistrate Judge McShain

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC’s 

motion to compel plaintiff David Hoerchler to produce the terms of his settlement 

agreements with Experian Information Solutions, Inc., TransUnion LLC, and 

CoreLogic Credco, LLC (collectively, the “Settling Defendants”). [75]. Plaintiff 

opposes the motion. [88]. For the following reasons, the motion is denied without 

prejudice.

Background

This is an action for damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681 (FCRA), in which plaintiff alleges that Equifax and the Settling Defendants 

violated the FCRA by negligently and/or willfully failing to use reasonable procedures 

to assure the maximum possible accuracy of plaintiff’s consumer credit reports. [1] 7. 

Plaintiff and the Settling Defendants reached settlement agreements in April and 

September 2021, respectively, leaving Equifax as the only defendant in this case. [59, 

82, 92].

According to the complaint, plaintiff and his wife decided in late Spring 2018 

to sell their home in Illinois and purchase property in Wisconsin, a process that 

required plaintiff to obtain pre-approval for a mortgage loan from Chase Bank. [1] 7. 

As part of this process, Chase obtained plaintiff’s credit history information from 

Equifax and the Settling Defendants. [Id.]. On June 12, 2018, Chase Bank sent 

plaintiff a copy of a CoreLogic report that contained credit history reports prepared 

by Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. [1] 9. All three reports contained errors 

regarding plaintiff’s credit history. [Id.] 8. Taken together, the errors included 

tradelines that did not belong to plaintiff, incorrect addresses, the wrong social 

security number, and inaccurate employment information. [Id.]. Two reports, from 

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:556
2

Equifax and TransUnion, reported that plaintiff was deceased. [Id.] 8. These 

inaccuracies were caused by “file-mixing,” an error where one consumer’s information 

is placed on the consumer report of another consumer. [Id.] 3. In this case, 

information belonging to Daniel Hoerchler, plaintiff’s deceased brother, was placed 

on plaintiff’s credit report. [Id.] 8.

Plaintiff maintains that, while all file-mixing issues with Experian and 

TransUnion were resolved by June 22, 2018, his file-mixing issues with Equifax 

remained unresolved long after this date. [88] 2. After receiving the inaccurate report 

from Chase Bank, plaintiff called Equifax on June 14, 2018, to dispute its erroneous 

report that plaintiff was deceased. [1] 8-9. After speaking to multiple Equifax

representatives, plaintiff was instructed to log into the Equifax website but was 

unable to do so because the security questions belonged to his deceased brother. [Id.] 

10-11. Plaintiff called Equifax again, but the representative he spoke to was unable 

to pull his file up because plaintiff’s information was mixed with that of his brother. 

[Id.]

On June 22, 2018, plaintiff sent Equifax a letter and supporting documentation

by certified mail, requesting that Equifax correct the mixed-file issue. [1] 10. The next

month, plaintiff called Equifax to confirm they had received his letter. [Id.] After

finally receiving an email from Equifax in mid-July 2018 regarding the status of his 

complaint, plaintiff was still unable to log in and view his information. [Id.] 11.

By this point, plaintiff’s issues with the Settling Defendants had been rectified 

for nearly one month, and Equifax was the only credit reporting agency with whom 

plaintiff could not resolve the file-mixing issues. Throughout July and August 2018, 

plaintiff received another inaccurate credit report, repeatedly called Equifax, 

repeatedly attempted to log into his account, and yet could not access his information. 

[Id.] 11-12. Nearly a year later, in April 2019, plaintiff requested another credit report

from Equifax, but this report still contained multiple inaccuracies. [Id.] 12.

For his claim against Equifax, plaintiff alleges that Equifax’s inaccurate 

consumer reports caused Chase Bank to reject plaintiff’s application for a mortgage 

loan pre-approval. [Id.] 8, 12-13. Plaintiff further contends that Equifax’s violations 

of FCRA caused him to suffer actual damages, including but not limited to denial of 

credit, damage to reputation, economic loss, reduced creditworthiness, invasion of 

privacy, interference with his normal activities, and severe mental anguish and 

emotional distress. [Id.] 13.

Legal Standard

 “In ruling on a motion to compel, the discovery standard set forth in Rule 26(b) 

applies.” Mendez v. City of Chicago, 18-cv-6313, 2020 WL 4736399, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 

Aug. 14, 2020). Rule 26 “governs the scope of civil discovery and allows parties to 

obtain discovery regarding any matter that is: (1) nonprivileged; (2) relevant to any 

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:557
3

party’s claim or defense; and (3) proportional to the needs of the case.” Barnes-Staples 

v. Murphy, Case No. 20-cv-3627, 2021 WL 1426875, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 15, 2021). “In 

determining the scope of discovery under Rule 26, relevance is construed broadly and 

is ‘not limited to issues raised by the pleadings[.]’” Id. (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, 

Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)). At the same time, discovery must be 

proportional to the needs of the case, “considering the importance of the issues at 

stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 

likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Discussion

Equifax argues that it is entitled to discover the terms of plaintiff’s settlement 

agreements with the Settling Defendants because the agreements are relevant “on 

the issue of offset and to avoid duplicative recovery under the one-satisfaction rule.” 

[75-1] 7. According to Equifax, plaintiff is seeking to recover damages for a single, 

indivisible injury from multiple defendants. [Id.] 7-8. Because the one-satisfaction 

rule prohibits a plaintiff from recovering “overcompensation . . . for a single injury,” 

Equifax contends that any amounts paid by the Settling Defendants to plaintiff 

should be credited against any judgment that may be entered against it. [Id.] 8-9. In 

the alternative, Equifax argues that the settlement agreements are relevant to 

facilitate future settlement discussion between the parties because the payments 

already made by the Settling Defendants reduce the overall value of plaintiff’s case. 

[Id.] 13-14. Finally, Equifax argues that the details of the settlement agreements–

particularly whether any of the payments were allocated toward attorney’s fees and 

whether the agreements included equitable relief–are relevant to help Equifax assess 

how plaintiff is calculating his damages. [Id.] 14-16.

Plaintiff opposes this motion on four grounds: (1) the one-satisfaction rule does 

not apply to FCRA claims; (2) even assuming that the rule were generally applicable 

in an FCRA case, the rule does not apply to plaintiff’s claim because he does not allege 

a single, indivisible injury caused by multiple defendants; (3) Equifax has not met its 

burden under Rule 26 to show that the settlement agreements are needed to facilitate 

further settlement discussions, particularly where the relief sought runs contrary to 

the policy encouraging settlement agreements and favoring their confidentiality; and 

(4) the motion is premature and should be deferred until after trial. [88] 2.

A. Ripeness of the Motion

The Court first addresses plaintiff’s argument that the motion is premature 

and should be deferred until a judgment of liability is entered against Equifax. 

According to plaintiff, even if the one-satisfaction rule applied in this case, the rule 

would only come into play at the damages phase of the case. [88] 15-16. Because there 

has been neither a trial nor a finding that Equifax is liable, plaintiff argues that 

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:558
4

Equifax’s request to discover the terms of plaintiff’s settlement agreements with the 

Settling Defendants for purposes of reducing Equifax’s liability to plaintiff is 

premature. [Id.] 16.

The Court agrees that, to the extent Equifax seeks the settlement agreements 

for purposes of establishing a credit against any judgment that plaintiff might obtain 

against it, the motion is premature. While there does not appear to be cases from the 

Seventh Circuit or the Northern District of Illinois addressing this issue, several 

persuasive cases have concluded that the applicability of a damages-related issue like 

the one-satisfaction rule are appropriately deferred until after trial. See Zook v. 

Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-2003-YY, 2018 WL 10604347, at *3

(D. Or. July 2, 2018) (“ordering discovery of settlement agreements before a jury has 

even awarded damages is premature”); Peters v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 2013 WL 

12169355, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013) (“Any issue of double recovery or excess 

recovery can be resolved post-trial.”).

However, to the extent that Equifax seeks the settlement agreements to 

facilitate further settlement negotiations between the parties, the Court finds that 

the motion is ripe for decision. The Court therefore turns to the parties’ arguments 

respecting the applicability of the one-satisfaction rule to plaintiff’s FCRA claim.

B. The One-Satisfaction Rule and FCRA Cases

Equifax argues that “[c]ourts around the country have held that parties in the 

same position as Equifax here [are] entitled to offsets in cases alleging FCRA 

violations.” [75-1] 9. This is so, Equifax maintains, because “the one-satisfaction rule 

. . . ensure[s] that Plaintiff does not obtain any more than what is owed to him for a 

single injury, such as emotional distress or the rejection of the Chase Bank 

mortgage.” [Id.]. Plaintiff responds that the one-satisfaction rule does not apply to 

claims under the FCRA because the FCRA is a deterrent statute intended to prevent 

conduct detrimental to a credit-based economy, not a “common law tort meant merely 

to compensate injured plaintiffs.” [88] 6. Appearing to recognize that no case within 

the Seventh Circuit has addressed this issue, plaintiff argues that cases from the 

Northern District of Illinois have found that “equitable doctrines much like the one 

satisfaction rule do not apply to the FCRA.” [Id.] 8 (citing Kay v. First Cont’l Trading, 

Inc., 966 F. Supp. 753 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). Plaintiff also contends that “[t]he 

overwhelming majority of district courts hold that federal common-law rules such as 

the one satisfaction rule, equitable offset, indemnity, and contribution do not apply 

to FCRA claims[.]” [Id.].

The one-satisfaction rule provides that “a plaintiff is entitled to only one 

satisfaction for a single injury.” Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co. v. Bridge, No. 05 C 4095, 

2012 WL 8706, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2012). The rule is “intended to prevent 

compensation in excess of the plaintiff's loss[.]” BCS Servs., Inc. v. BG Invs., Inc., 728 

F.3d 633, 641 (7th Cir. 2013). “Under the one-satisfaction rule, amounts received in 

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:559
5

settlement from an alleged tortfeasor are credited against judgments for the same 

injury against non-settling tortfeasors.” Phoenix Bond & Indem., 2012 WL 8706, at 

*1.

The parties have not cited any cases from the Seventh Circuit or district courts 

within the Circuit that have considered whether the one-satisfaction rule applies in 

an FCRA case, and the Court’s research uncovered no such cases. Case law from 

outside the Seventh Circuit establishes that most courts to have considered this

question hold that the one-satisfaction rule, which is also referred to as an equitable 

offset, does not apply in FCRA cases. See Zook, 2018 WL 10604347, at *2-3 (D. Or. 

July 2, 2018) (the “weight of authority” from district courts nationwide holds that 

there is no equitable offset for causes of action under FCRA); Contreras v. Kohl’s Dep’t 

Stores, Inc., EDCV 16-2678-JGB (KKx), 2017 WL 6372646, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 

2017) (“there is no equitable offset in FCRA cases”); Vasquez-Estrada v. Collecto, Inc., 

No. 3:14-CV-01422-ST, 2015 WL 6163971, at *2 (D. Or. Oct. 20, 2015) (“Even if 

plaintiff sought duplicate damages, there is no express or implied right to an offset of 

amounts that plaintiff may have received in settlement from other FCRA 

defendants.”). In contrast, the minority rule–represented in cases from the Northern 

District of Alabama–is that the one-satisfaction rule does apply to FCRA claims. See 

Younger v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00952-SGC, 2018 WL 11271518, at 

*1-2 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 30, 2018); Williams v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 4:15-cv-2219-

KOB, 2017 WL 1331014, at *1-2 (N.D. Ala. April 11, 2017). These cases relied on an 

Eleventh Circuit decision holding that the one-satisfaction rule applies to all federal 

statutory causes of action. See Williams, 2017 WL 1331014, at *2 (citing BUC Int’l 

Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd., 517 F.3d 1271, 1278 n.7 (11th Cir. 2008)).

The Court need not definitively resolve this issue to rule on Equifax’s motion. 

As the Court explains below, even if the one-satisfaction rule applied to FCRA claims 

generally, the rule would not apply in this case because plaintiff has alleged more 

than a single, indivisible injury.

C. Single, Indivisible Injury

“The essential requirement for the ‘one satisfaction rule’ is that the amounts 

recovered by settlement and the judgment must represent common damages arising 

from a single, indivisible harm.” Chisholm v. UHP Projects, Inc., 205 F.3d 731, 737 

(4th Cir. 2000); accord Dalton v. Alston & Bird, 741 F. Supp. 157, 159 (S.D. Ill. 1990) 

(one-satisfaction rule applies only “both the settlement and the judgment represent 

common damages”).

In this case–particularly where dispositive motions have not been filed, the 

case has not proceeded to trial, and no factual findings relative to plaintiff’s claim 

have been made–Equifax has not demonstrated that plaintiff’s claim involves only a 

single, indivisible injury that was inflicted on him by Equifax and the Settling 

Defendants acting jointly. Rather, plaintiff’s complaint and his declaration in 

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:560
6

opposition to the motion to compel permit the conclusion that he suffered a series of 

discrete injuries over a period of nearly ten months. 

Whether a claim involves a single, indivisible injury is necessarily a casespecific question, rather than a question that can be answered using a bright-line 

test. That said, the Court finds the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Sloane v. Equifax 

Information Services, LLC, 510 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2007), instructive. In that case, the 

court held that the one-satisfaction rule did not apply to the plaintiff’s FCRA claim 

because the claim was not limited to a single, indivisible injury. The evidence that 

the Fourth Circuit relied on to reach that conclusion is similar to the conduct on which 

plaintiff’s claim against Equifax rests.

First, like the plaintiff in Sloane, plaintiff’s encounters with Equifax post-date 

his encounters with the Settling Defendants and the Settling Defendants’ resolution 

of their respective mistakes. Compare Sloane, 510 F.3d at 501 (“although some of 

Suzanne's interactions with Equifax overlapped with exchanges with other credit 

reporting agencies, her encounters with Equifax both predate and postdate these 

other exchanges”). All file-mixing issues with TransUnion and Experian were 

resolved by June 22, 2018, but this point marked just the beginning of plaintiff’s 

issues with Equifax. [88] 2. Plaintiff subsequently engaged with Equifax numerous 

times via certified mail, over the phone, and via email. Each time plaintiff attempted 

to get his information corrected, Equifax failed to resolve the issue; even one year 

later, plaintiff’s issues with Equifax were still unresolved. [1] 12.

Second, unique mistakes were made by each agency, and plaintiff is seeking 

damages from different defendants for different conduct, rather than damages 

stemming from the same conduct. Compare Sloane, 510 F.3d at 501 (“each agency 

produced reports with different inaccuracies, and each agency either corrected or 

exacerbated these mistakes independently of the others”). Equifax’s and Experian’s 

reports indicated that plaintiff was deceased, but when plaintiff contacted Experian, 

it fixed the mixed-file issue right away. [1] 13. For its part, TransUnion–in addition 

to mistakenly removing most of plaintiff’s legitimate accounts from his file, many of 

which he needed for the home loan process–repeatedly misspelled plaintiff’s last 

name. [Id.] 15. Equifax confronted plaintiff with security questions that asked about 

credit cards belonging to his deceased brother, and he was unable to access his file 

online. This particular error did not happen with any of the Settling Defendants. [Id.] 

10. The number and type of mistakes made by each credit reporting agency varied, 

and each agency made discrete mistakes that affected Plaintiff in different ways. [88] 

12; [88-1] 8; see Sloane, 510 F.3d at 501 (“the inaccuracies in Equifax’s credit reports 

caused Suzanne discrete injuries independent of those caused by the other credit 

reporting agencies”).

Third, each credit reporting agency either took corrective action or exacerbated 

mistakes independently of one another. TransUnion and Experian corrected their 

file-mixing mistakes independently of one another, on different dates, and long before 

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:561
7

Equifax did so. Sloane is again instructive in this instance. Each credit reporting 

agency in that case produced reports with different inaccuracies at different times 

and attempted to correct their mistakes independently of one another. The Court 

found that this evidence supported the conclusion that the plaintiff suffered discrete 

injuries at the hands of each defendant. Sloane, 510 F.3d at 501. Likewise, in this 

case, while some of the errors reported by each agency persisted longer than the filemixing issues, Equifax exacerbated its file-mixing mistakes for a lengthy period of 

time after the first inaccurate report was issued. [1] 13, 15. The agencies did not work 

in tandem with one another to either fix or exacerbate the mistakes because many of 

the mistakes were unique to the agencies themselves.

Finally, Equifax’s discrete violations of the FCRA contributed to discrete 

injuries suffered by plaintiff. While Equifax contends that all defendants jointly 

contributed to the same harm, plaintiff interacted with Equifax more frequently and 

to a greater extent than with each of the Settling Defendants. He attempted to fix 

distinct errors, was prevented from fixing those errors in distinct ways, and each of 

these interactions caused separate and distinct instances of emotional harm, 

especially in the interactions that occurred long after his file-mixing issues were 

resolved with the Settling Defendants. [88-1] 6. 

The Court further concludes that this case is distinguishable from Younger, on 

which Equifax relies. In that case, the district court found that the one-satisfaction 

rule applied because the plaintiff testified that “he could not distinguish the distress” 

caused by one defendant from that caused by another, and the plaintiff repeatedly 

attributed his injuries to “the entire case” or a “combination” of different things. 

Younger, 2018 WL 11271518, at *2. In contrast, plaintiff here has clearly explained, 

both in the complaint and in his declaration, that the nature and timeline of Equifax’s 

violations and subsequent injuries were longer and more extensive than that of the 

Settling Defendants and demonstrated that Equifax’s conduct caused separate and 

distinct injuries. [88-1] 8.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint and declaration permit the conclusion 

that he did not suffer a single, indivisible injury resulting from Equifax and Settling 

Defendants’ conduct. The one-satisfaction rule is therefore inapplicable, and Equifax 

is not entitled–at least not at this juncture–to discover the terms of plaintiff’s and the 

Settling Defendants’ settlement agreements. This decision is without prejudice to 

Equifax’s ability to renew the motion before the District Judge in the event a finding 

of liability is made.

D. Use of Settlement Agreements to Facilitate Settlement

Finally, and for largely the same reasons set forth above, the Court concludes 

that Equifax has not met its burden under Rule 26 to show that the settlement 

agreements are relevant to future settlement negotiations between the parties.

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:562
8

“Whether a confidential settlement agreement should be disclosed to other 

parties in a multi-party case is governed by the familiar Rule 26(b)(1) discovery 

standards.” In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig., Case No. 18 CV 864, 2019 WL 

3884036, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2019). “Within this general framework, the party 

seeking disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement involving two other parties 

in the same case must articulate something more than a bald desire to see what the 

other parties said in their settlement agreement.” Id., at *2. “While there is no 

settlement privilege to overcome, in most cases, the movant articulates a specific 

basis as to why the settlement terms are relevant to a claim or defense in the 

continuing litigation so that production of the settlement agreement is proportional 

to the needs of the case and overrides the settling parties' interest in keeping their 

settlement confidential.” Id.

Here, plaintiff’s claim is not subject to the one-satisfaction rule because it does 

not involve a single, indivisible injury caused by multiple defendants. Consequently, 

Equifax has not shown that the payments made by the Settling Defendants would be 

relevant for settlement purposes because they would not reduce the value of plaintiff’s 

case against Equifax, which concerns distinct injuries. Absent this showing, the Court 

concludes that Equifax’s request “reflects [its] (understandable) desire to know what 

[plaintiff and the Settling Defendants] agreed to in their confidential settlement, but 

without the necessary facts to establish that disclosing those settlement terms is 

relevant and proportional to the needs of this case at this time.” In re Dealer Mgmt., 

2019 WL 3884036, at *2. Furthermore, even if the settlement agreements were 

relevant to future settlement talks between plaintiff and Equifax (and they are not), 

there is no representation in Equifax’s motion that it is currently engaged in 

settlement negotiations with plaintiff or that it intends or desires to resume those 

negotiations. See id., at *3 (denying motion to compel production of settlement 

agreements from other parties in case where movants “do not say they currently are 

engaged in settlement discussions with CDK or anyone else such that they need to 

see the details of the CDK/Cox settlement agreement”). Instead, Equifax describes 

plaintiff’s settlement demand as “exorbitant” and “unjustified,” [75-1] 13, and implies 

that plaintiff’s settlement tactics were not taken in good faith and are akin to 

blackmail, see [id.] 14. This is hardly indicative of a genuine desire to resume 

settlement negotiations in good faith and with an open mind.

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:563
9 

Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, Equifax’s motion to compel production of plaintiff’s 

settlement agreements with the Settling Defendants [75] is denied. The denial is 

without prejudice to Equifax’s ability to renew the motion in the event that Equifax 

is found liable to plaintiff or as otherwise directed by the District Judge.

_____________________________________ 

HEATHER K. McSHAIN

United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: October 21, 2021

Case: 1:20-cv-03310 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:564