United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
T JASON NOYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
YALE ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant
the Court is Plaintiff T Jason Noye's motion to compel
discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and
(Doc. No. 60.) For the following reasons, the Court will
grant Plaintiff's motion.
February 2015, Plaintiff T Jason Noye applied for the
position of Operations Supervisor with Johnson & Johnson
through a staffing company, Kelly Services, Inc.
(“Kelly”). (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 32.) Plaintiff was
offered and accepted the position on February 11, 2015.
(Id.) In his application, Plaintiff indicated that
he had been convicted of a crime. (Id. ¶ 33.)
On March 13, 2015, Kelly informed Plaintiff that Johnson
& Johnson would not hire Plaintiff based on a background
report obtained from Yale Associates, Inc.
(“Yale”). (Id. ¶ 36.)
operates a national database of public records and furnishes
consumer reports for employers. (Id. ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff maintains that Yale misreported four summary
offenses as misdemeanors and three summary offenses as
“safety violations” in Plaintiff's background
report. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 42-43.) Plaintiff
claims that these inaccuracies cost him his position with
Johnson & Johnson. (Id. ¶ 40.)
November 24, 2015, Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned
action against Defendant Yale Associates, Inc. for violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15
U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. (Doc. No. 1 ¶
1.) In Count I of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant violated the FCRA's requirement to (1) notify
“the fact that adverse public and criminal record
information is being provided to employers or prospective
employers” (id. ¶ 58(a)), see 15
U.S.C. § 1681k(a)(1); and to (2) “maintain strict
procedures to insure that the public record information it
sells to employers is complete and up to date” (Doc.
No. 1 ¶ 58(b)), see 15 U.S.C. §
1681k(a)(2). In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
“willfully and negligently” misreported summary
offenses in Pennsylvania as misdemeanors or more serious
offenses, thus failing, to “follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information.” (Id. ¶ 63) (citing 15
U.S.C. § 1681e(b)).
brings the above-captioned action on behalf of himself and
two putative classes. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 46-53.)
Namely, Plaintiff seeks to bring the action on behalf of the
following classes identified as the “Section 1681k
Class” and the “Section 1681e(b) Class, ”
(a) All natural persons residing in the United States
(including all territories and other political subdivisions
of the United States) who were the subject of a consumer
report furnished to a third party by Yale, that was furnished
for an employment purpose, that contained at least one record
of a criminal conviction or arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or
civil judgment, on or after five years prior to the filing of
this action and extending through the resolution of this
case, and to whom Yale did not place in the United States
mail postage pre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of
the report containing the public record, a written notice
that it was furnishing the subject report and containing the
name of the person that was to receive the report (the
“Section 1681k Class”).
(b) All natural persons residing in the United States who,
within five years prior to the filing of this action and
continuing through the resolution of this case, were the
subjects of background reports prepared by Defendant Yale
which disclosed a Pennsylvania summary offense as a
misdemeanor or more serious offense (the “Section
No. 1 ¶ 46(a)-(b)) (emphasis added). Plaintiff seeks to
certify the proposed classes pursuant to Rule 23 and to
recover statutory damages, punitive damages, as well as
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. at
March 17, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to strike
Plaintiff's class allegations, strike punitive damage
requests, and dismiss Count I of the complaint. (Doc. No.
24.) The Court denied Defendant's motion to strike (Doc.
No. 46), and scheduled a status conference on Rule 23
discovery for November 17, 2016. (Doc. No. 54). Following the
status conference, Plaintiff's counsel notified the Court
that the parties had agreed, inter alia, that
Defendant would answer Interrogatory No. 1 “regarding
the number of people in the proposed Classes.” (Doc.
No. 58 at 1.) Interrogatory No. 1 provides as follows:
State the total number of natural persons residing in the
United States and its Territories who were the subject of a
consumer report furnished to a third party by Yale, that was
furnished for an employment purpose, that contained at least
one record of a criminal conviction or arrest, civil lien,
bankruptcy or civil judgment, and that was prepared on or
after November 24, 2010.
No. 60-3 at 7.) Nonetheless, on April 26, 2017, Plaintiff
filed the pending motion to compel urging the Court to order
Defendant to supplement its responses. (Doc. Nos. 60, 60-1.)
Defendant has filed a brief in opposition on May 10, 2017,
and Plaintiff filed a reply brief on May 23, 2017. The motion
to compel is ripe for disposition.