Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00253-JBA

Document 88

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WILLIAM SPECTOR v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC CASE NO. 3:03CV 253 (JBA) (JGM) April 7, 2004

PLAINTIFF' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT' SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY S S Defendant has submitted an entirely inapposite district court decision to supplement its Motion for Summary Judgment. This case involves repeated and deliberate violations of plaintiff'rights to a copy of his own credit file due to defendant'intentional adoption of an s s " off-line" procedure to retaliate against consumers who file suit. The Quinn case, in contrast, involved a plaintiff who sued even though a disputed account was removed within six weeks of the dispute. Unlike Quinn, here there is a very real claim that Equifax committed the " systematic deprivation of [plaintiff' consumer[ ] rights" s] which would justify an award of punitive damages. Quinn, slip op at 14. In Quinn, the higher interest rate damages had been incurred before the disputed account appeared on the credit file. Unlike Quinn, plaintiff believes he has adequately explained the circumstances of the injury, but that is a question for the jury Moreover, in Quinn, no creditors had ever tried and failed to get a copy of the plaintiff'credit report or were misled about its existence, as here. Courts have recognized s that " report" adverse to the consumer. See Thompson v. Equifax Credit Inf. Serv., 2001 no is WL 34142847 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 14, 2001). There, the consumer'file was also offline and the s question was whether the information provided was a " consumer report."

Case 3:03-cv-00253-JBA

Document 88

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 2 of 4

It is true that in this case the information provided by Defendant could indicate several things to the purchaser of the report. For instance, it could indicate that Plaintiff has bad credit history, or it could indicate that Plaintiff does not have any good credit history. The purchaser of the report is left hanging as to whether or not to grant credit to Plaintiff. Based on information such as "FILE UNDER REVIEW," "FILE UNAVAILABLE ONLINE," and "CONTACT BUREAU," it is logical to assume that the cautious thing for the purchaser of the information to do would be to deny Plaintiff credit. Id. at *3. See also the oral decision in Stephens v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc., Civ. No. 3:03 CV 142 (E. D. Va. 2003) (excerpt attached), where Judge Williams stated at p. 20: Next, I rule as a matter of law that the Fair 17 Credit Reporting Act requires that a notice be 18 sent to a co-applicant, even one whose report 19 indicated a lack of credit data, because the 20 absence of credit data reveals a great deal about 21 one's mode of living and general credit worthiness 22 as set forth in 1681 a(d)(1). The Federal Trade Commission also recognizes that a " report" a negative factor. no is Its Statements of General Policy Or Interpretations Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 16 C.F.R. Pt. 600 App. §615.11, mandates that a user provide an adverse action notice when there is no report: 11. Adverse Action Based on Non-derogatory Adverse Information. A party taking adverse action concerning credit or insurance or denying employment, " wholly or partly because of information contained in a consumer report," must provide the required notice, even if the information is not derogatory. For example, the user must give the notice if the denial is based wholly or partly on the absence of a file or on the fact that the file contained insufficient references.

Thus, by taking his file offline, Equifax both prevented plaintiff from correcting his report and blackballed his participation in the credit economy. Plaintiff' s situation is entirely unlike Quinn.

2

Case 3:03-cv-00253-JBA

Document 88

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 3 of 4

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 April 7, 2004, postage prepaid, to: J. Anthony Love Kilpatrick Stockton 1100 Peachtree St #2800 Atlanta GA 30309-4530
___/s/ Joanne S. Faulkner_______ Joanne S. Faulkner

3

Case 3:03-cv-00253-JBA

Document 88

Filed 04/14/2004

Page 4 of 4