JUDY C. THOMAS, Plaintiff, vs. TRANS UNION LLC, a foreign
corporation, Defendant.

CV 00-1150-JE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

197 F. Supp. 2d 1233; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7451

March 21, 2002, Decided

DISPOSITION:
[**1] Magistrate judge recommended that Defendant's motions to strike certain
of plaintiff's exhibits be denied as moot, and plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment be denied.

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff individual sued defendant credit reporting agency
for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et
seq., claiming that the reporting agency failed to follow reasonable procedures
to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in its credit reports.
The individual moved for partial summary judgment. The matter was referred a
magistrate judge.

OVERVIEW: The individual argued that the reporting agency failed to comply with
the requirement in 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(1) that information disputed by a
consumer be reinvestigated within 30 days and failed to provide a timely written
notice of the results of reinvestigation and a statement that the
reinvestigation was completed. The magistrate judge concluded that the defense
of reasonable procedures was available to the reporting agency with respect to a
claim under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i because there was no reason not to apply that
defense to the maintenance of accurate information through the dispute and
reinvestigation procedures. Although the magistrate judge agreed that the
reporting agency did not timely reinvestigate one of the individual's accounts,
given the availability of the defense of reasonableness, the individual was not
entitled to summary judgment. Moreover, the claim related to the timeliness of
the notice of reinvestigation was not resolvable on summary judgment because
even if the notice did not comply with the statute, fact issues were raised by
the reasonable procedures defense.

OUTCOME: The magistrate judge recommended that the motion for partial summary
judgment be denied.

CORE TERMS:
reinvestigation, credit report, disputed, consumer, notice, summary judgment,
updated, accuracy, credit reporting agency, reinvestigate, reporting,
reinvestigated, revised, failed to comply, written notice, inaccurate, partial,
maximum possible, strict liability, matter of law, moving party,
reasonableness, preparation, recommend, duty, issues of material fact,
consumer reports, jury question, completion, incomplete

CORE CONCEPTS

Civil Procedure : Summary Judgment : Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment should be granted if there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c).

Civil Procedure : Summary Judgment : Burdens of Production & Proof
If the party moving for summary judgment shows that there are no genuine issues
of material fact, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and
designate facts showing an issue for trial. A scintilla of evidence, or evidence
that is merely colorable or not significantly probative, does not present a
genuine issue of material fact.

Civil Procedure : Summary Judgment : Summary Judgment Standard
The substantive law governing a claim determines whether a fact is material for
purposes of summary judgment. Reasonable doubts as to the existence of a
material factual issue are resolved against the moving party. Inferences drawn
from facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Banking Law : Bank Activities : Consumer Protection : Fair Credit Reporting
The elements of a claim for failure to reinvestigate under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i
(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., are: (1) the
plaintiff's credit file contains inaccurate or incomplete information, 15
U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(1); (2) the plaintiff notified the credit reporting agency
directly of the inaccurate or incomplete information, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(1);
(3) the plaintiff's dispute is not frivolous or irrelevant, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i
(a)(3); (4) the credit reporting agency failed to respond to the plaintiff's
dispute, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(1), (2), and (6); (5) the failure to
reinvestigate caused the consumer to suffer damages; and (6) actual damages
resulted to the plaintiff. Actual damages may include damages for humiliation,
mental distress, and injury to reputation and credit worthiness, even if the
plaintiff has suffered no out-of-pocket losses.

Banking Law : Bank Activities : Consumer Protection : Fair Credit Reporting
If a consumer notifies a credit reporting agency of a dispute concerning the
completeness or accuracy of any item of credit information, the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., requires the agency to reinvestigate
free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or
delete the item within 30 days of receiving the dispute. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i
(a)(1)(A).

Banking Law : Bank Activities : Consumer Protection : Fair Credit Reporting
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., a credit
reporting agency must provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a
reinvestigation not later than five business days after the completion of the
reinvestigation. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(6)(A).

Banking Law : Bank Activities : Consumer Protection : Fair Credit Reporting
As part of, or in addition to, the notice under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(6)(A) of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., a consumer reporting
agency must provide to the consumer a statement that the reinvestigation is
completed, and a consumer report that is based on the consumer's file as that
file is revised as a result of the reinvestigation. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i
(a)(6)(B).

Banking Law : Bank Activities : Consumer Protection : Fair Credit Reporting
Courts regularly hold that the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et
seq., does not impose strict liability on an agency.

Banking Law : Bank Activities : Consumer Protection : Fair Credit Reporting
Under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §
1681 et seq., the credit reporting agency is required to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in the
consumer reports it prepares. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681e(b).

Banking Law : Bank Activities : Consumer Protection : Fair Credit Reporting
The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., imposes liability on
a consumer reporting agency for negligent failure to comply with any requirement
imposed by the Act. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681o.

COUNSEL:
For Judy C Thomas, Plaintiff: Michael Charles Baxter, Baxter & Baxter, Robert S.
Sola, Portland, OR.

For Trans Union LLC, Defendant: Donald E. Bradley, Theresa C. Archuletta,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Irvine, CA.

For Trans Union LLC, Defendant: Emi A. Murphy, Francis T. Barnwell, Bullard
Smith Jernstedt Harnish, Portland, OR.

For Defendant: Emi A. Murphy, Portland, Oregon.

JUDGES:
John Jelderks, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

OPINIONBY:
John Jelderks

OPINION:

[*1234] FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge:

The matter before the court is plaintiff's motion (doc. 62) for partial
summary judgment. Oral argument was held March 19, 2002.

Plaintiff brings this action against defendant for alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. In her moving
papers, plaintiff states that most of her claims involve allegations that
defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (Compliance Procedures) by failing to
follow [**2] reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information in its credit reports. Plaintiff states that she does not move for
summary judgment on the claims arising under section 1681e(b) because the
reasonableness standard raises a question of fact.

[*1235] At issue in this motion is plaintiff's claim that defendant
violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) (Procedures in Case of Disputed Accuracy). She
moves for summary judgment on two claims arising under section 1681i(a), arguing
that as a matter of law:

(1) Defendant failed to comply with the requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i
(a)(1) that information disputed by a consumer be reinvestigated within 30 days;
and

(2) Defendant failed to comply with the requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i
(a)(6) that written notice of the results of reinvestigation and a statement
that the reinvestigation has been completed be provided to the consumer no later
than five days after completion of the reinvestigation.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS

Summary judgment should be granted if there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment [**3] as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the moving party shows that there are no genuine
issues of material fact, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and
designate facts showing an issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322-23, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). A scintilla of evidence,
or evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative, does not
present a genuine issue of material fact. United Steelworkers of America v.
Phelps Dodge, 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1989).

The substantive law governing a claim determines whether a fact is material.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct.
2505 (1986); see, also, T.W. Elec. Service v. Pacific Elec. Contractors, 809
F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Reasonable doubts as to the existence of a
material factual issue are resolved against the moving party. T.W. Elec. Service
, 809 F.2d at 631. Inferences drawn from facts are viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 630-31.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 19, 1999, by [**4] facsimile to defendant, plaintiff disputed 14
items that defendant was reporting on her credit reports. One of the accounts
disputed was Gulf State # 3707922961 (Gulf State account), which was a
collection account related to GTE Mobil # 5039106464941028 (GTE Mobil account).
Defendant explains that GTE Mobil appears to be the underlying creditor, while
Gulf State appears to be the collection agency to which the GTE Mobil account
was eventually transferred.

Less than 30 days after the February 19th dispute, on March 8, 1999,
plaintiff sent defendant another letter (received by defendant on March 12th)
disputing a number of items appearing on her credit report. Included with the
letter were pages from a credit report that contained information reported by
defendant. Plaintiff had written the word "delete" across some 24 items reported
that she disputed as not being hers. Plaintiff admits that most of the accounts
disputed on March 8th were already being reinvestigated by defendant pursuant to
her February 19th dispute, and she does not contend that defendant should have
initiated new investigations of those accounts. However, plaintiff asserts that
one of the items disputed on March [**5] 8th, the GTE Mobil account, was not
already being investigated and defendant was obligated to reinvestigate within
30 days of its receipt of plaintiff's dispute on March 12, 1999, which it did
not do.

Defendant contends that it completed the reinvestigations of the February
19th disputes on March 22, 1999, and that same day prepared a notice of the
results of the reinvestigations. However, defendant says that because it had
received another [*1236] dispute letter from plaintiff between February 19th
and March 22nd, it then updated the information in the report based on
plaintiff's March 8th dispute. Once the information was updated, defendant
generated a second updated credit report on that same day, March 22nd, and sent
the second report to plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserts that the March 22nd report she received contained
defective notices in violation of FCRA in that it described the results of the
reinvestigation of only one account that she had disputed on February 19th, the
Bank of America account. Defendant disagrees, arguing that the second March
22nd updated credit report complied with section 1681i because it stated that
defendant had completed its reinvestigation and the credit report [**6] itself
was the "notice" because it incorporated the results of the reinvestigation into
the body of the report.

Thereafter, defendant sent plaintiff a credit report dated April 15, 1999,
that still reported the GTE Mobil account as adverse information. After
plaintiff received that credit report, she again disputed the account to
defendant. Defendant reinvestigated after this dispute and deleted the GTE Mobil
account on May 18, 1999.

Defendant has moved to strike many of the exhibits plaintiff submitted in
support of her motion for partial summary judgment. I have reviewed the motions
and objections to exhibits. None of the materials at which defendant's motions
are directed were necessary for the resolution of plaintiff's motion.
Defendant's motions are denied as moot.

APPLICABLE LAW

A. Elements of FCRA Claim.

The elements of a claim for failure to reinvestigate under section 1681i(a)
are:

(1) The plaintiff's credit file contains inaccurate or incomplete
information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1).

(2) The plaintiff notified the credit reporting agency directly of the
inaccurate or incomplete information. Id.

(3) The plaintiff's dispute [**7] is not frivolous or irrelevant. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681i(a)(3).

(4) The credit reporting agency failed to respond to the plaintiff's dispute.
15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1), (2), and (6).

(5) The failure to reinvestigate caused the consumer to suffer damages.
Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., 246 F.3d 359, 368-69 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 151
L. Ed. 2d 261, 122 S. Ct. 346 (2001).

(6) Actual damages resulted to the plaintiff. Actual damages may include
damages for humiliation, mental distress, and injury to reputation and credit
worthiness, even if the plaintiff has suffered no out-of-pocket losses. Id. at
369 n.15.

B. Reinvestigation - 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

If a consumer notifies a credit reporting agency of a dispute concerning the
completeness or accuracy of any item of credit information, FCRA requires the
agency to reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the
disputed information, or delete the item within 30 days of receiving the
dispute. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

C. Notice of Reinvestigation [**8] - 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6).

A credit reporting agency must provide written notice to a consumer of the
results of a reinvestigation not later than five business days after the
completion of the reinvestigation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(A).

Further, "as part of, or in addition to, the notice under subparagraph (A),
"a consumer [*1237] reporting agency must provide to the consumer a statement
that the reinvestigation is completed, and a consumer report that is based on
the consumer's file as that file is revised as a result of the reinvestigation.
15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(B).

D. Defenses.

An important issue raised by plaintiff's motion is what defenses are
available to a credit reporting agency that violates one of the provisions of
section 1681i. In her motion, plaintiff argues that under the facts here there
is no defense available to defendant for alleged violations of section 1681i,
which is essentially an argument for strict liability. Courts regularly hold
that FCRA does not impose strict liability on an agency. Guimond v. Trans Union
Credit Information Company, 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995); [**9] Dalton v.
Capital Associated Industries, Incorporated, 257 F.3d 409, 417 (4th Cir. 2001);
Pettus v. TRW Consumer Credit Service, 879 F. Supp. 695, 697 (W.D. Texas. 1994).

In its answer to plaintiff's second amended complaint, defendant asserts as
its first affirmative defense that it "followed reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning plaintiff in preparing
consumer reports related to her." Def. Answer, P 16, p.4. Section 1681e(b) of
FCRA requires the credit reporting agency to "follow reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible accuracy of the information" in the consumer reports it
prepares. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). Because there is not a similar provision in
section 1681i dealing with reinvestigation, the question arises as to whether
the defense of reasonable procedures is available to a consumer reporting agency
in relation to its reinvestigation obligations under section 1681i. I conclude
that it is available, and the discussion of plaintiff's motion that follows
relies on that conclusion.

It is logical that a consumer reporting agency should not be liable under
FCRA [**10] for an employee's isolated mistakes in the face of the agency
having and enforcing reasonable procedures to fulfill its FCRA obligations.
Indeed, the reasonable procedures defense "is designed to protect users of
credit information who consistently abide by the law but who, in dealing with
hundreds or thousands of instances, ultimately, by commission or omission,
inadvertently violate the law in isolated instances. Mathews v. Government
Employees Insurance Co., 23 F. Supp.2d 1160, 1163 (S.D. Cal. 1998). There is no
reason to restrict the reasonable procedures defense to the initial preparation
of credit reports, but not permit the defense as to the maintenance of accurate
information through the dispute and reinvestigation provisions of section
1681i(a). The two sections overlap -- the reinvestigation process is a part of
the agency's duty to maintain accurate credit reports. Thus, although section
1681i does not contain explicit reasonable procedures provisions, I conclude
that such a defense is available with respect to a claim under section 1681i.

I have found no cases directly holding that the reasonable procedures defense
is available to an agency with respect [**11] to its section 1681i obligations.
However, there are cases that touch on the issue. For example, the Fifth Circuit
discusses updating procedures as part of an agency's continuing duty under
section 1681e(b) to insure accuracy of a credit report. Thompson v. San Antonio
Retail Merchants Association, 682 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1982). As discussed above,
I view dispute and reinvestigation as part of the ongoing process of insuring
accuracy of credit reports. In Thompson, the court said:

Section 1681e(b) does not impose strict liability for any inaccurate credit
report, but only a duty of reasonable care in preparation of the report. That
duty [*1238] extends to updating procedures, because "preparation" of a
consumer report should be viewed as a continuing process and the obligation to
insure accuracy arises with every addition of information. [Citation omitted].
The standard of conduct by which the trier of fact must judge the adequacy of
agency procedures is what a reasonably prudent person would do under the
circumstances.

682 F.2d at 513.

In Stewart v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 236 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 734 F.2d 47 (D.C.
Cir. 1984), [**12] plaintiff argued that the defendant's reinvestigation
violated section 1681e(b)'s requirement that the agency follow reasonable
procedures to assure accuracy. The court assumed, arguendo, that a section
1681e(b) challenge to reinvestigation procedures was cognizable, and held that
defendant's motion for summary judgment on the claim was properly granted
because the agency's reinvestigation procedures were reasonable as a matter of
law. 734 F.2d at 55-56.

In Bruce v. First U.S.A. Bank, National Association, 103 F. Supp.2d 1135
(E.D. Missouri 2000), the court adopted the "reasonableness standard applied in
cases addressing reinvestigations under § 1681i(a)" to determine whether the
defendant failed to comply with an investigation requirement under another
section of FCRA, section 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) (duties of furnishers of information
upon notice of dispute). 103 F. Supp.2d at 1143. The court noted that "courts
interpreting § 1681i(a) have imposed upon credit reporting agencies a duty to
conduct a reasonable reinvestigation." Id.

There are other cases that touch on the relationship between sections 1681i
and 1681e(b). See, e.g. [**13] , Stevenson v. TRW, Inc., 987 F.2d 288 (5th Cir.
1993) (credit reporting agency's reinvestigation did not violate section
1681e(b) even though inaccurate information continued to appear on consumer's
reports); Yelder v. Credit Bureau of Montgomery, L.L.C., 131 F. Supp.2d 1275
(M.D. Ala. 2001) (court rejected "maximum accuracy" reasonableness standard of
section 1681e(b) in favor of lower standard to be used to evaluate defendant's
section 1681i procedures for reinvestigations).

The reasonable procedures defense creates a jury question. Guimond, 45 F.3d
at 1333; Dalton v. Capital Associated Industries, Incorporated, 257 F.3d 409,
417 (4th Cir. 2001); Mathews v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 23 F.
Supp.2d at 1164.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on her claims that defendant
negligently violated the provisions of section 1681i(a) of FCRA relating to
reinvestigations of accounts disputed by a consumer. FCRA imposes liability on
a consumer reporting agency for negligent failure to comply "with any
requirement imposed" by the [**14] Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

A. Reinvestigation - 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

1. Plaintiff's Arguments.

Plaintiff argues that defendant violated section 1681i(a)(1)(A) by failing
to reinvestigate the GTE Mobil account within 30 days of her first dispute of
the account that defendant received on March 12, 1999.

Plaintiff argues that under FCRA, a credit reporting agency has no discretion
whether to reinvestigate once it receives notification of a dispute from a
consumer. The agency must complete the investigation within 30 days. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681i(a)(2). In this case, defendant did not even begin to reinvestigate until
plaintiff disputed the GTE Mobil account a [*1239] second time on April 19,
1999. Thus, plaintiff contends that defendant failed to comply with the
reinvestigation requirements of FCRA on the GTE Mobile account, there is no
defense available for that failure, and she is entitled to summary judgment.

2. Defendant's Arguments.

Of the 14 items included in plaintiff's February 19th dispute, only the GTE
Mobile account remained on her credit report on March 22nd after defendant had
[**15] completed its investigations and updated plaintiff's identifying
information.

Defendant asserts that because of plaintiff's overlapping disputes, it was
required to review plaintiff's February 19th and March 8th disputes together, to
parse the old from the new for the purpose of its reinvestigation. In doing so,
an employee mistakenly identified the GTE Mobil account as an old dispute.
Defendant says the confusion was created by the fact that on February 19th,
plaintiff had disputed the Gulf State account (the collection agency trade line
for the GTE Mobil account that lists GTE Mobil as the originating creditor).
Because the Gulf State account included the name of GTE Mobil on the trade line,
defendant's employee who conducted the review did not realize the GTE account in
the March 8th dispute was a different one from the Gulf State account in the
February 19th dispute. It is for this reason that the reinvestigation of the GTE
Mobil account was not initiated at that time.

In addition to the name confusion, defendant asserts that if there was a
breakdown in its reinvestigation process, it was largely due to the fact that
plaintiff had submitted multiple and overlapping disputes that [**16] hindered
its investigation. Defendant asserts that between February 4, 1999 and May 18,
1999, it received 11 disputes from plaintiff, some just days apart, and almost
all the disputes pertained to the same accounts previously disputed. In sum,
defendant contends that its reinvestigation was reasonable given the situation.

3. Discussion.

I agree that defendant did not timely reinvestigate the GTE Mobil account.
However, I disagree that no defense is available to defendant. As discussed
above, the reasonable procedures defense is available to defendant for a claim
under section 1681i. The reasonable procedures defense creates a jury question.
Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Information Company, 45 F.3d at 1333. Therefore,
I recommend that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on this issue be
denied.

B. Notice of Reinvestigation - 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6).

1. Plaintiff's Arguments.

Plaintiff argues that defendant violated FCRA by failing to provide her with
(a) notice of the results of the reinvestigations of her February 19th disputes
(except for the Bank of America account), and (b) a statement that the
reinvestigations [**17] were completed.

Plaintiff argues that she never got notice that 13 of the accounts she
disputed had been reinvestigated or what the results of those reinvestigations
were. She asserts that sending her a revised credit report does not satisfy
defendant's FCRA obligation to provide her with a written notice of the results
of the reinvestigation. She argues that because the statute requires that a
revised credit report be sent "as part of, or in addition to" the written notice
of the results of the reinvestigation (15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(B)), the notice
and the revised report must be two separate things. She also argues the notice
in the revised credit report is in any event defective [*1240] because it
indicates that only one disputed account had been reinvestigated and states only
that result.

Plaintiff argues that defendant violated the FCRA requirement that it provide
in writing "a statement that the reinvestigation is completed." 15 U.S.C. §
1681i(a)(6)(B)(i). She argues that the March 22nd credit report that she
received stated that defendant had completed only one reinvestigation (the Bank
of America account) because of the way the notice [**18] was written. Under the
"Investigation Results" section, the report said: "We have completed our
investigation of the item(s) you disputed. Our findings are summarized as
follows:" Then, the only item following the statement is the Bank of America
account. Plaintiff argues this notation was insufficient to inform her if
reinvestigation had been completed with respect to the 14 accounts she disputed
on February 19th.

2. Defendant's Arguments.

Defendant argues the March 22nd second updated credit report sent to
plaintiff was sufficient to comply with FCRA because it incorporated the results
of the reinvestigation into the body of the credit report.

Defendant argues that FCRA does not require a credit reporting agency to
provide the consumer with a "summary" of its investigation results. Rather,
section 1681i(a)(6)(A) requires only a written "notice" of the results. Further,
the statute does not specify the form the notice must take, nor does it require
a separate letter, or an updated credit report, or an updated credit report with
a separate "notice of results of investigation" section. Therefore, what
defendant sent to plaintiff complies with 15 U.S.C. § 1681i [**19] (a)(6)(A).

According to defendant, as a practical matter, a simple review of the report
would have shown plaintiff that, other than the Bank of America account noted on
the first page as containing new information, all of the other challenged
accounts had been removed from plaintiff's credit report. Defendant argues that
someone as concerned about the disputed accounts as plaintiff claims she was
would have noted that 13 of the 14 disputed accounts were no longer on her
credit report.

Defendant argues that it did, in fact, provide plaintiff with a statement
that it had completed its investigation of her February 19th dispute. Appearing
on page 1 of the updated report it sent to plaintiff is the statement "We have
completed our investigation and the results are shown below." Defendant argues
that no matter what investigation results were shown below the notice, it
fulfilled its obligation under section 1681i(a)(6)(B)(i) to tell plaintiff it
had completed its investigation.

3. Discussion.

It does not appear that the updated credit report that plaintiff received was
in full compliance with the statute. Even so, I conclude that that issue can
best be resolved by the trial [**20] judge in this matter. This claim cannot be
resolved on summary judgment because even if the notice does not comply with the
statute, fact issues are raised by the reasonable procedures defense. Therefore,
I recommend that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on this issue be
denied.

CONCLUSION

Defendant's motions (docs. 86 and 87) to strike certain of plaintiff's
exhibits are DENIED as moot, and I recommend that plaintiff's motion (doc. 62)
for partial summary judgment be DENIED.

SCHEDULING ORDER

The above Findings and Recommendation are referred to a United States
District [*1241] Judge for review. Objections, if any, are due April 8, 2001.
If no objections are filed, review of the Findings and Recommendation will go
under advisement on that date.

A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after
service of a copy of the objection. If objections are filed, review of the
Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement upon receipt of the
response, or the latest date for filing a response.

DATED this 21st day of March, 2002.

/s/ John Jelderks

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Post Extras: