Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thornburg v. Intelifi, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri.

January 25, 2019

JOHN THORNBURG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS; Plaintiff,
v.
INTELIFI, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE

          ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE

         Before the Court are Plaintiff John Thornburg's objections to certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents. For the reasons stated on the record and below, Plaintiff s objections are OVERRULED. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to produce the requested information, subject to the Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order (“Protective Order”) (Doc. 48) and with proper redactions as discussed below.

         Background

         Plaintiff claims, on behalf of himself and six nationwide putative classes, that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by failing to obtain proper certifications from employers, failing to make certain disclosures, reporting inaccurate information, failing to use reasonable procedures to maximize accuracy, and reporting information that was more than seven years old. (Doc. 37.) Defendant seeks discovery of the following:

. “Adverse-action” letters Plaintiff has received, including attachments (e.g., from potential employers who obtained reports to conduct background checks);
. Reports concerning Plaintiff that were sent to or received by prospective employers;
. Transcripts of depositions Plaintiff gave in connection with prior FCRA claims;
. Background checks containing similar alleged inaccuracies that Plaintiff received from other entities;
. Plaintiffs tax returns and W-2s for the years 2013-2017;
. Plaintiff s current credit report from Equifax, Experian, or Transunion;
. Plaintiff s prior FCRA settlements with other entities; and
. Documents relating to Plaintiff s employment attempts for the past five years.

         Plaintiff objects to Defendant's discovery requests on the grounds that (1) the information requested is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case, and (2) Defendant has no “permissible purpose” for requesting consumer reports in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. On January 9, 2019, the Court held a telephone conference regarding Plaintiff's objections. Prior to the conference, the parties submitted discovery dispute summaries to the Court via email, per the Court's discovery dispute protocol. During the conference, the Court ruled that the requested information is discoverable, subject to a joint protective order and potential redactions. At the Court's direction, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.