In Cousineau v. Unifund CCR Partners, 2012 WL 3135687 (D.Colo. 2012), Judge Arguello held that a Plaintiff still must demonstrate factual inaccuracy of a credit report regardless of how well a furnisher re-investigates a consumer dispute.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s investigations were unreasonable because Defendant failed to discover documents from Chase showing that Plaintiff asked to be removed from the account. This argument is unavailing. To determine whether Defendant’s investigations were reasonable, the focus is not on the results of the investigations, but on whether the pro-cedures employed by Defendant were reasonable. See Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1161 (emphasizing that “the requirement that furnishers investigate consumer disputes is procedural.”) ¶ . . . .Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s investigation was “obviously incomplete” because it did not receive “call notes or minutes” or a “signed agreement” from Chase. (Doc. # 42 at 13.) Even assuming arguendo that the “call notes or minutes” or a “signed agreement” were important to substantiate Plaintiff’s dis-pute,FN6 Plaintiff concedes that Defendant asked Chase to send it all of its documentation relating to the Account. (Doc. # 42 at 13) (“[Defendant] asked Chase for all of its records”). Thus, any incompleteness in Defendant’s investigation was caused by Chase’s failure to send information, not because Defendant conducted an unreasonable investigation. Further, although Plaintiff asserts that the records sent by Chase were “obviously incomplete,” the documents that Defendant received from Chase clearly show that Plaintiff was responsible for the Account. Specifically, Defendant received a copy of the September 23, 2008 letter sent by Chase to Plaintiff stating that “we are not able to delete this account from your credit report.” (Doc # 32–1 at 43.) Additionally, Defendant received a copy of a letter dated January 21, 2010, in which Chase informed Plaintiff that “[t]his account is [in] your name only and you are the liable party. The bank is not obligated to the terms of a divorce decree.” (Id. at 46.) On the basis of these documents, a reasonable investigator would have concluded that its information was correct. ¶  In her response, Plaintiff relies heavily on Johnson v. MBNA America Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.2004). In that case, the furnisher’s investigation consisted solely of reviewing its own records, and the furnisher did not consult any underlying documents. See id. at 429. Here, in contrast, Defendant looked not only at its own records, but verified those records with the original creditor. Defendant also investigated and provided a detailed response to Plaintiff’s complaint with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, prompting that office “to take no further action.” (Doc. # 32–1 at 48.) ¶ Furthermore, the documents that Plaintiff claims Defendant should have discovered do not absolve her of liability on the account; rather, the documents show that Plaintiff would be removed from the Account only after a request has been “received and approved.” (Doc.42–4; 42–6.) Because Plaintiff provides no evidence that Chase ever approved her request, these documents would have further supported Defendant’s reporting that Plaintiff was liable on the Account.FN7 Thus, even if Defendant was somehow negligent in conducting its investigation by failing to discover these documents, Plaintiff has failed to show that the information furnished by Defendant was factually inaccurate. See Chiang, 595 F.3d at 38 (holding that a plaintiff must show that the disputed information is inaccurate under § 1681s–2(b)). ¶  Based upon the undisputed facts of this case, no reasonable factfinder could determine that Defend-ant’s investigation was unreasonable. Further, no reasonable factfinder could determine that Defendant furnished the CRAs with inaccurate information given the absence of evidence showing that Plaintiff was not liable on the Account. Thus, summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff’s FCRA claim.