Credit Damage Expert Witness Allowed in Part

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants related to a false credit history report.  Plaintiff hired a Credit Damage Expert Witness to provide testimony.  Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.  The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part.

Facts:  This case (Cramer v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Missouri – September 18th, 2019) involves a credit history report.  The plaintiff alleges that she discovered false delinquent accounts on her credit report.  She investigated her account and found out that an individual that she doesn’t know accessed her credit information and incurred the false charges.  The plaintiff attempted to resolve the situation with the defendant, to no avail.  in order to prove her claims the plaintiff hired Evan Hendricks (Credit Damage Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Discussion:  The defendant alleges that Mr. Hendricks is not qualified to testify about the defendant’s internal debt reporting procedures because he does not have any education or experience related to the operation of a consumer reporting agency, has never been employed by such an agency, and has not been part of a FCRA investigation about a customer dispute on behalf of a report agency.

The plaintiff responds that Mr. Hendricks should be qualified as an expert in the consumer reporting industry as he has been involved in seventeen FCRA-related federal and state cases in which he has testified as an expert, shows Mr. Hendrick’s numerous published publications on consumer reporting issues, and highlights the fact that Mr. Hendrick’s has testified numerous times before Congress on FCRA issues.

In addition, the plaintiff replies that Mr. Hendricks does not offer legal conclusions or opinions, but provides admissible opinions based on his large knowledge concerning industry standards for investigations into credit disputes.

The court opines that Mr. Hendrick’s is qualified to serve as an expert in this case.  The court notes that Mr. Hendrick’s has been qualified as an expert in numerous cases involving credit reporting including the current court.  The court does note that although his qualified, he will be limited to certain topics.

The court opines that Mr. Hendrick’s will be able to testify about relevant industry practices for investigating and reporting credit data.  That said, Mr. Hendrick’s will not be allowed to provide a legal analysis or conclusions of law, which will include whether the defendant’s conduct did not conform to a certain legal standard, as this is an ultimate issue that will be decided by the jury.

In addition, Mr. Hendrick’s will not be allowed to render opinions about the plaintiff’s supposed emotional distress and other damages, as he he is not qualified to offer medical opinions.  Also, Mr. Hendrick’s will not be allowed to offer an opinion on damages that flow from false credit reports.

Conclusion:  The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Evan Hendricks is granted in part and denied in part.