Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ronald Alexander Garcia Delgado sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act after Experian mixed his credit file with his son’s file. Experian did not dispute that the files were mixed, but denied that the error violated the FCRA.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. Experian argued that it used reasonable procedures, did not cause actual damages, and did not act willfully; Garcia Delgado sought partial summary judgment on inaccuracy and damages. Experian later filed a second summary-judgment motion asserting that the claims were barred by the FCRA’s five-year limit, while Garcia Delgado moved to reopen discovery based on testimony from a former Experian employee in another case.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied both parties’ initial summary-judgment motions because neither established the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. It also denied Experian’s second motion. Experian relied on the date it allegedly mixed Garcia Delgado’s credit file in 2018, but the asserted claim concerned Experian’s preparation of consumer reports under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). Because Experian did not establish when the relevant reports were prepared, it failed to prove that suit was filed more than five years after the alleged violation.
The court nevertheless allowed Experian to amend its answer within ten days to assert 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(2) as an affirmative defense, finding that the issue had been raised in the proposed pretrial order without objection and that Garcia Delgado was not prejudiced in his ability to respond. The court also denied Garcia Delgado’s request to reopen discovery. Even assuming discovery deficiencies explained the delay, the requested discovery was insufficiently important, would effectively reset a trial-ready case, and would impose prejudice that a continuance could not cure.
Key Takeaways
- A credit-file mixing date does not by itself establish when an alleged violation involving the preparation of a consumer report occurred under § 1681e(b).
- Experian failed to prove its five-year-bar defense at summary judgment, but may still plead and litigate that defense.
- New evidence of possible discovery deficiencies did not justify reopening discovery where a motion to compel remained available and the requested relief would require substantial new proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves Garcia Delgado’s FCRA claims for trial and highlights the statutory distinction between a consumer’s credit file and a consumer report. A defendant invoking § 1681p(2) must establish when the violation underlying the particular FCRA claim occurred, not merely when information first entered or became mixed in a file.
The ruling also shows that courts may permit a late affirmative defense when it was raised at a pragmatically sufficient time without prejudice, while refusing to reopen discovery that would substantially disrupt a case already prepared for trial.