In Caseman v. Silver Schools Credit Union, 2018 WL 3620484, at *5 (D.Nev., 2018), Judge Boulware granted summary judgment to a furnisher who submitted corrections to a consumer’s account information to a CRA, but where the CRA did not make the change because it did not comply with the CRA’s internal formatting.
The Court finds that Silver State acted reasonably and fully complied with its statutory duties. Silver State sent information clearly identifying the updated information on Plaintiff’s account, with the intention that all CRAs would update their reporting of Plaintiff’s account. It is undisputed that Silver State had no knowledge that Trans Union would reject the updated information because it was not conveyed in a manner consistent with Trans Union’s internal policies. Until the lawsuit was filed, Silver State was unaware that inaccurate information was still being reported by Trans Union, as the record indicates that Trans Union did not submit a dispute from Plaintiff to Silver State or otherwise indicate that the updates were not made. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s reference to a contract between Trans Union and Silver State. Plaintiff does not cite to a particular provision of the contract which supports his argument that Silver State knew that it needed to convey updated account information in a particular manner to Trans Union. The statute does not require furnishers like Silver State to customize carbon copies or communications with CRAs, and there is no dispute that Silver State used industry-recognized Metro 2 codes to convey Plaintiff’s updated account balance and status. Neither Plaintiff nor Trans Union contends that Trans Union did not understand Silver State’s ACDV, or that it was somehow unintelligible – the document merely was not in compliance with Trans Union’s own internal format. The Court thus finds as a matter of law based upon the undisputed facts that Silver State acted reasonably during its investigation and reporting regarding the Plaintiff’s dispute. The Court declines to interpret the statute as suggested by Plaintiff to require that a furnisher would have an additional obligation to confirm and check that every single correction suggested by the furnisher was in fact corrected by the CRA. The Court does not find that Silver State had an obligation to understand in full the operation of Trans Union’s internal reporting system, especially where Silver State sent information correcting inaccurate information in a clear format – which Trans Union understood but refused to incorporate. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff raises no dispute to suggest that Defendant was aware of a general pattern of inaccurate information being reported by Trans Union or other CRAs after Defendant sent updated account information via e-Oscar. Moreover, the Court finds that Silver State was never made aware by Trans Union or any other party that corrected information provided by Silver State in a manner not in compliance with Trans Union’s policies would be rejected by Trans Union, resulting in inaccurate information continuing to be reported. The Court does not find that reasonable procedure requires the furnisher to confirm in each and every instance that the CRA has properly assimilated and corrected information about a mistake where the furnisher has provided updated information in a clear and intelligible manner, and where the furnisher is not on notice that the CRA will reject corrected but non-conforming information.