The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Sean F. Cox
OPINION & ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT EXPERIAN
Plaintiff Darryl Kaplan ("Plaintiff") brought this action against Defendant Experian, Incorporated ("Experian"), and two other credit reporting agencies, asserting that each agency violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Discovery in this action has closed and the matter is currently before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff and Experian. The Court finds that oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. See Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The Court therefore orders that the motions will be decided upon the briefs. For the reasons that follow, the Court shall DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and shall GRANT Experian's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff brought this action against the following three credit reporting agencies: 1) Experian; 2) Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union") and 3) Equifax, Inc. ("Equifax").*fn2 Plaintiff's complaint asserts only one count against Defendants -- "Violation of 15 USC 1681 (Fair Credit Reporting Act)."
This Court issued the first Scheduling Order in this matter on March 5, 2009. As reflected in the docket, Defendants have had difficulty obtaining discovery from Plaintiff from the onset of this action.
Plaintiff did eventually submit some discovery responses, wherein he represented that he was asserting a very narrow and specific claim against Defendants. In Answers to Trans Union's Interrogatories, Plaintiff objected to requests for various information on the basis of relevance, asserting that "the only issued contained within the pleadings before the Court is whether Trans Union complied with its statutory obligations in resolving Plaintiff's credit dispute in a timely manner." (Docket Entry No. 42-4 at 1) (emphasis in original). Similarly, in response to Experian's interrogatories, Plaintiff responded as follows:
INTERROGATORY 13: Please detail the specific actions and/or inactions of Experian which you contend violated its obligations under the FCRA and indicate how Experian should have conducted itself differently.
RESPONSE: Experian failed to respond to my request for investigation within 30 days. As a result, Experian was required to remove the disputed items. Experian refused to do so, even after having been urged to follow the requirements of the FCRA by my former attorney, Jeffrey Thav. (Docket Entry No. 52-3 at 7-8).
Based on the narrow claims asserted in Plaintiff's complaint, and disclosed by Plaintiff during discovery, Defendants began filing motions for summary judgment. On October 2, 2009, Experian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket Entry No. 31).
Plaintiff then began filing his own motions for summary judgment -- but in doing so asserted new claims that were not contained in his complaint or disclosed by Plaintiff during discovery. In an Opinion & Order dated December 17, 2009, this Court struck Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment wherein he sought summary judgment on newly asserted claims. (Docket Entry No. 60). That Opinion & Order advised Plaintiff that if he desired to file motions for summary judgment on the narrow claim that he had asserted in his complaint, and disclosed during discovery, he could do so no later than January 8, 2010.
On January 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second motion seeking summary judgment as to Experian. (Docket Entry No. 68). In violation of this Court's order, however, Plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment as to Experian continues to assert expanded claims against Experian.
Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56 (c). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admission on file together with the affidavits which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)).
In this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Experian violated 15 U.S.C. §1681i by failing to respond to his request for investigation within 30 days. Plaintiffs seeks damages and attorney fees for that alleged violation under §1681o, which governs civil liability for negligent noncompliance with the FCRA.
Experian acknowledges that, due to a timing error on its part, the results of Experian's investigation were not mailed to Plaintiff until September 24, 2008. Therefore, Experian was "delinquent in responding by six*fn3 days." (See Docket Entry No. 31 at 3). It contends, however, that summary judgment must be granted in its favor because Plaintiff cannot establish that he incurred any actual damages as a result of that technical violation. Experian claims that if Plaintiff cannot establish that he incurred any actual damages, or establish that any claimed damages were caused by Experian's technical violation, Plaintiff cannot obtain relief under §1681o.
Plaintiff denies that he admitted that he incurred no actual damages. Plaintiff also asserts that he is not required to establish actual damages. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability and that the matter should proceed to a "trial limited to the issue of ...