Ronald Alexander Garcia Delgado v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas partially grants and partially denies Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s motion to strike or limit the report and testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Douglas Hollon, in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case. The court permits testimony concerning industry standards and the types of damages typically caused by credit-reporting errors but excludes Hollon’s opinions regarding the plaintiff’s specific economic damages and their cause. The court also declines to strike the plaintiff’s briefing for local-rule violations.

Holdings

1. Hollon may not testify about Plaintiff's specific economic damages or the cause of those damages, but he may testify in general terms about the types of damages typically caused by errors on credit reports. The court did not exclude proposed testimony about Plaintiff's emotional distress because Plaintiff represented that he did not intend to offer such testimony; any attempt to offer it would be addressed at trial.
2. The motion was denied insofar as it sought exclusion of Hollon's testimony as improper legal conclusions, based on Plaintiff's representation that Hollon would testify about industry standards and whether conduct comported with those standards rather than opine definitively that Defendant violated the FCRA.
3. Hollon's testimony was not excluded for lack of reliability because his opinions were primarily based on nineteen years of experience and expertise in FCRA and credit-reporting matters, and alleged deficiencies could be explored through cross-examination and contrary evidence.
4. The court declined to strike Plaintiff's response despite page-limit violations because Defendant sought the relief through improper footnotes rather than a separately filed motion, and the court was granting the motion in part in any event.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hollon was qualified to testify about Plaintiff's alleged economic and emotional damages and the types of damages typically caused by credit-reporting errors.
2. Whether Hollon's proposed opinions constituted improper legal conclusions.
3. Whether Hollon's experience-based methodology was sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
4. Whether Plaintiff's response should be stricken for violating the court's page limits and for failing to raise the issue through a separately filed motion.

Disposition

other