Free Objection/Reply/Response to Recommended Ruling - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00253-JBA

Document 95

Filed 06/23/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WILLIAM SPECTOR v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC CASE NO. 3:03CV 253 (JBA) (JGM) June 22, 2004

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED RULING Pursuant to D. Conn. Local Rule 72.2(b) for Magistrate Judges, plaintiff objects to the following portions of the June 7, 2004 Recommended Ruling and requests a de novo review. The Recommended Ruling properly finds that defendant was negligent as a matter of law in its repeated failure and refusal to provide plaintiff with a copy of his consumer disclosure as mandated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiff objects to the Recommended Ruling because it applies the wrong standards to the question of actual and punitive damages, and includes inapplicable dicta endorsing Equifax'" s offline procedures" which others recognize as retaliatory, unreasonable, and noncomplying with the FCRA. 1. The Recommended Ruling applied actual damages standards adopted by the Second Circuit under the independent " reinvestigation" provisions of the statute. Those standards are not applicable to the mandatory disclosure provisions here. Moreover, the Recommended ruling improperly rejected the actual damages admittedly incurred. 2. The Recommended Ruling applied a " willful, deliberate, and intentional" standard to punitive damages instead of the Second Circuit'" s reckless indifference standard."The heightened standard applies only to discrete sections of the FCRA.

Case 3:03-cv-00253-JBA

Document 95

Filed 06/23/2004

Page 2 of 2

3. The Recommended Ruling states, in dicta, that the offline procedures " would not violate FCRA" (Ruling at 19) despite abundant authority to the contrary. The portion of the decision discussing the offline procedures is moot in view of the Recommended denial of defendant'Motion for Summary Judgment. Whether the s offline procedures are reasonable or in compliance with the FCRA, or worthy of punitive damages where, as here, there is no purpose other than retaliation for the consumer'suing Equifax, is a quintessential question for the jury. s

THE PLAINTIFF

BY____/s/ Joanne S. Faulkner___ JOANNE S. FAULKNER ct04137 123 Avon Street New Haven, CT 06511-2422 (203) 772-0395 [email protected]

This is to certify that the foregoing and attached was mailed on June 22, 2004, postage prepaid, to: J. Anthony Love Kilpatrick Stockton 1100 Peachtree St #2800 Atlanta GA 30309-4530
___/s/ Joanne S. Faulkner_______ Joanne S. Faulkner

2