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.

Wilson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 22, 2019

BRENDA WILSON, Plaintiff(s),
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER [DOCKET NOS. 37, 38]

          Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Experian Information Solution's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 37. The Court has considered Defendant's motion, Plaintiff's response, and Defendant's reply. Docket Nos. 37, 43, 52. Also pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for a protective order. Docket No. 38. The Court has considered Defendant's motion, Plaintiff's response, and Defendant's reply. Docket Nos. 38, 44, 53. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff brought this action on January 9, 2019, and filed an amended complaint on March 18, 2019. Docket Nos. 1, 26. Plaintiff alleges numerous violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”) and the Nevada Revised Statues concerning her credit information and her Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. Docket No. 26 at 13-32. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Experian violated Section 1681 of the FCRA as well as NRS Section 598 in (1) misreporting credit information; (2) misreporting bankruptcy inclusion dates; and (3) supressing positive data leading to the production of an incomplete report. Id.

         II. Analysis

         The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013); see also Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603.

         I. Potentially Dispositive Motion

         Defendant submits that its pending motion to dismiss potentially disposes of all of Plaintiff's claims. Docket No. 37 at 6. In response, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant's motion to dismiss relates to all of her pending claims. Docket No. 43 at 8.

         Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant's motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive of the instant case.

         II. Need for Additional Discovery

         Defendant submits that its pending motion to dismiss does not require any discovery to be resolved. Docket No. 37 at 11. Defendant submits that its motion to dismiss argues that Plaintiff fails to satisfy the elements of her claims because she (1) fails to allege any actionable inaccuracy in her disclosure; (2) fails to allege that any purportedly inaccurate information was every included in a consumer report sent to a third party; (3) fails to allege that that Defendant's reinvestigation was unreasonable, or that she provided a statement of dispute after receiving the reinvestigation results; and (4) fails to allege that Defendant's disclosures did not permit her to evaluate the accuracy of her credit information that is furnished to third parties in credit reports. Id. at 6-14. Defendant further submits that Plaintiff lacks an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing to bring those claims. Id. at 4. Defendant submits, therefore, that discovery is unnecessary to resolve its motion to dismiss. Id. at 6.

         In response, Plaintiff submits that discovery is required on her claims. Docket No. 43 at 8.[1] Plaintiff submits that the nuances of Defendant's reinvestigation of her disputes are unknown, but that this evidence is routinely explored in discovery and requires Defendant to turn over information. Id. Plaintiff further submits that discovery is necessary because Defendant has been concealing additional, critical policy documents for years and that those documents and depositions will provide explanations for Defendant's actions in reinvestigating Plaintiff's disputes. Id. at 9. Plaintiff submits that discovery is relevant to her disclosure and reinvestigation claims, especially on credit information and credit scoring. Id. at 9-11.

         In reply, Defendant submits that discovery is neither necessary nor appropriate to resolve the motion to dismiss. Docket No. 52 at 4. Defendant submits that a stay of discovery is appropriate here because Plaintiff fails to allege any injury sufficient for Article III standing and fails to plead her claims as a matter of law. Id. at 3-4. Defendant further submits that, while Plaintiff insists on discovery to support her claims, the question before the court is whether discovery is necessary to resolve the pending motion to dismiss. Id. at 5-6.

         The Court has reviewed all briefing on Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court finds that, while discovery is necessary to resolve the claims themselves, it is not ...


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.