Chapter 11

Deposition of Equifax Employee About Correcting Errors in a Credit File

David A Szwak is a partner with Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak in Shreveport, Louisiana. He specializes in insurance defense, personal injury, consumer credit, and commercial litigation. Mr. Szwak has written many credit-related and other articles, including Theft of IdentityA Credit Nightmare, Texas Bar Journal, 1993; Theft of Identity, Call It Data Rape, Alaska Bar Associations The Alaska Bar Rag (1994); Theft of Identity: Roadkill on the Information Highway, New Hampshire Bar Associations Trial Bar News (1994); Theft of Identity: Data Rape, Colorado Bar Associations The Colorado Lawyer (1995); and Credit Cards in America, Shreveport Bar Associations The Bar Review (1995). Mr. Szwak received a J.D. from Paul M. Herbert Law Center, Louisiana State University, and holds a B.S. from Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge Chapter 11 is the deposition of a supervising employee in the customer service department of Equifax, a credit reporting agency. The deposition describes the procedures for responding to consumer disputes of credit information.

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 [CONSUMER 1] and [CONSUMER 2], Plaintiffs, vs. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION ) ) CASE NO. 01-1901 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION 7 a/t/a EQUICREDIT CORPORATION AND EQUIFAX 8 CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Colleen B. Seidl, CCR-B-1113, RPR, CRR Suite 2800 1100 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia October 18, 2002 11:10 a.m. VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF [EMPLOYEE]

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Videographer: 19 Mr. Allen Miegel 20 21 22 23 24 25 --On behalf of the Defendant: NationsCredit Financial Services PAUL J. GIORDANO, Esq. Monteverde, McAlee & Hurd, A Professional Corporation One Penn Center at Suburban Station Suite 1500 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-1815 On behalf of the Defendant: Equifax Credit Information Services: LEWIS P. PERLING, Esq. Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Suite 2800 1100 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 On behalf of the Plaintiffs: DAVID SZWAK, Esq. Bodenheimer, Jones, Szwak & Winchell, LLP Suite 240 401 Market Street Shreveport, Louisiana 71101 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Reporter disclosure made pursuant to Article 8.B. of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by. On the record. [EMPLOYEE], having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. SZWAK: Q. [Employee], I'm David Szwak. I represent

the plaintiffs along with Tom Marsillio in this lawsuit. And I wanted to take a deposition today of Equifax, and I understand that you're responsive on behalf of the corporate defendant. A. Q. Yes. Could you please tell us your full name

and address? A. [Redacted].

The address is 211 Perimeter Center, Atlanta, Georgia, 30346. Q. A. Q. Is that an -- an address for Equifax? Yes. And what do you do at Equifax?

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. I'm a senior operations manager. What are your day-to-day job duties? I manage the customer service, written and

phone and incoming mail correspondence. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. case? A. Q. A. Q. A. or April. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Do you remember the plaintiff's name? [Redacted]. I'm sorry? [Redacted]. Was that a Georgia-based lawsuit or Not really. I mean, not specifically. Were you acting on behalf of Equifax? Yes. When did that deposition take place? It was this year. And I want to say March How long have you been in that position? Since April of 2000. Have you ever given a deposition before? Yes. How many times? Once previously. And do you remember anything about that

somewhere else? A. That was in Alabama. Mobile.

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do your normal job duties involve

assisting outside counsel in evaluating issues? A. Q. Yes. Where did you work prior to coming to work

at Equifax? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Ryan's Family Steak House. And what did you do there? I was cashier, waitress. How long did you work there? It was seven years. Okay. When you started at Equifax, were

you -- did you take over a managerial role or did you start in -- at a lower level and work your way to the management position? A. I started at a lower level and worked my

way into a managerial position. Q. A. Q. When did you first start with Equifax? September of 1993. And from then until April of 2000, you

worked in customer service? A. Q. A. Q. Customer service, yes. Your title was customer service rep? Customer service representative. Now, in connection with your job

currently, do you also provide testimony by

6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 affidavit? A. Q. Yes. And how often do you provide testimony by

affidavit? A. Q. Generally speaking, maybe twice a month. And those are for involvement in civil

lawsuits? A. Q. A. Q. with? A. Q. Uh-huh. I want to ask you if you -- did you Yes. How many employees do you oversee? 52. 52? You have a lot of people to keep up

receive some authority from Equifax to appear today? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes. And where did you obtain that authority? It's a part of my job. Part of your job description? Yes. Have you had a chance to look over the

notice of deposition? A. Q. No, I never had. Okay. We could give you a couple of

minutes to look it over and go off the record and let

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you read it. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. (Pause in the proceedings.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by. Back on the record. (Plaintiff's Exhibit EFX A was marked for identification.) Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Did you have a chance to

read this exhibit, what I have marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit A, which is a notice of deposition duces tecum? A. Q. Yes. Do you feel comfortable with the language

that's used in the areas of inquiry here on the first page going on to the second page? MR. PERLING: Let me object. Let me object to the question before she gets to answering. And for the record, Equifax served an objection to the oral, notice of oral deposition duces tecum and stated -stated some specific objections to the wording of the areas of inquiry. Mostly for vagueness, overbreadth and that type of thing. And I don't know if you're marking that to make that a part of the record, but

8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'll be happy to. MR. SZWAK: I've got your copy that you've telefaxed to me, and I appreciate that. MR. PERLING: Okay. (Plaintiff's Exhibit EFX B was marked for identification.) MR. SZWAK: I think this is a complete copy. If you will look it over, I've marked it as Exhibit B, and it's got -- got your cover page. MR. PERLING: Well, that states my objection for the record, and I'll let you, since you've already marked this exhibit, enter it however you want to. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) When you -- when you read

the areas of inquiry, did you feel comfortable with the terminology that is contained in them? A. Q. Yes, somewhat. Okay. Did you feel like this is

information which you had an ability to gather at Equifax pertaining to this case? A. Q. Somewhat, yes, for the most part. What about any additional documents that

you may have found that have not yet been produced by Equifax, were you able to locate any documents that

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were requested? A. Q. No, I have not found any documents. In this case, do you know whether there

was ever a generation of the business records called the frozen scans? A. Q. case? A. Q. Hmm-mm. Do you have an ability to print those from No. I haven't seen any frozen scans. You haven't seen any frozen scans in this

your system? MR. PERLING: Are you talking about Equifax or this witness in particular? MR. SZWAK: I'm assuming she is Equifax. MR. PERLING: So you're asking, can Equifax print frozen scans? Q. (By Mr. Szwak) I'm asking her, do you

know if you have the ability to do that? A. I personally do not have the ability to do

that, but I can order a frozen scan. Q. Well, the importance today of that

question has to do with the reporting period of the subject NationsCredit account. Do you think without the frozen scans that you'll be able to tell me what

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 periods of time that particular account had reported on the Plaintiff's credit reports? A. I would have to largely use the

information that I -- I prepared, that I looked over yesterday. Q. Now, those are ACIS cases that you brought

with you? A. Q. Yes. And in connection with the ACIS cases that

you have, do you believe you would be able to testify about when this particular account appeared on their various -- on their various credit reports generated by Equifax and when it may have been removed? A. do that. Q. Okay. Well, let's proceed and see -- see Yes, in relation to the ACIS cases, I can

how we do with that. I've marked as Exhibit A the notice of deposition duces tecum, and Exhibit B I marked Equifax's objections to the notice. Let's -- let's then begin by let me -- let me ask you if you've had a chance to look over the responses to the Plaintiffs' interrogatories that we served on Equifax? I'll provide it to you. This is -MR. PERLING: As a matter -- as a matter

11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of fact, let me state that I neglected on behalf of Equifax to include verification for those. And I have a supplement with the verification that I'll mail out today, and it just is attaching a signature page. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Let me first begin by

asking you, have you ever seen this set of interrogatories that were served in this case on Equifax? A. Not this. (Plaintiff's Exhibit EFX C was marked for identification.) MR. PERLING: Let me make sure, David, I don't mean to interrupt. Let me make sure that we're clear, because, uhm, the witness, I think, has reviewed the responses which indeed include a restatement for each response of what is in Exhibit C. So to that respect, I don't -I want to make sure she's not confused that she hasn't seen it in the form of Exhibit C, but she has seen it in the form of other things. THE WITNESS: Because I do recognize that.

12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Plaintiff's Exhibit EFX D was marked for identification.) Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Okay. Let me ask you, did

you review Exhibit D? A. Q. Yes. Does it appear to be a true and accurate

response to the questions that were posed? A. Q. Yes. That's right. And there were a number of documents that

were produced that were attached to the response, is that a set of what you brought with you today? A. Q. Yes. Do you know if there were any additional

documents that you located other than what is attached to the interrogatories? A. Q. No. There were no additional. Great. Now, I've marked as Exhibit C just

our set of the interrogatories, Exhibit D is Equifax's now verified responses through your testimony. And I appreciate that. Let me ask you if you could, to take -take us now, we want to talk about the facts of [Consumers 1 and 2], who are the plaintiffs in the case. And when I refer to plaintiffs today, I'll be talking about them. Okay?

13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Okay. And if there's any difference, if, for

example, your answer would be different for [Consumer 1] than it would be for [Consumer 2], if you would just please tell me. Okay? A. Q. Okay. When did Equifax first learn of a problem

with the plaintiffs' credit reports? A. The first -- the first time I'm showing

that anything by way of phone call or mail was received from the plaintiffs were, is rather, December 30th of 1999. And we received a mail document from the plaintiffs. Q. A. Q. This would be a dispute letter? Yes. Do you know if you have a copy of that

document? A. Q. A. Q. No, I do not have a copy of that document. Are those documents retained by Equifax? Documents are retained for two years. Now, this lawsuit was filed in September

of 2001. Do you know whether anyone went back and attempted to locate this particular set of documentation? A. I didn't see any.

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. This retention period is for 24 months or

is it for 30 months? A. Q. 24. Let me ask you if it's correct to say that

you received a dispute certainly regarding [Consumer 1] and that you all, his contention was that there was an erroneous reporting of the status, the rating, the pay history on a NationsCredit account? A. Well, I really don't know what -- what the

letter said. Q. Okay. What do your records reflect that

his complaint was? A. The records -- the records reflect that we

received notification from NationsCredit to remove any disputed account or update per the consumer. So my records reflect that the processor attempted to remove or suppress this account per the credit grantor instructions. Q. Now, according to Equifax's records,

computerized, physical or otherwise, the first time that you heard from NationsCredit about this disputed account, the one that's involved in this case, was on January 5 of 2000? A. Q. No. When did Equifax first hear from

15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NationsCredit about that account? MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form. THE WITNESS: Well, I'm showing a report date of September 1999. So this item was reported in September of 1999. Equifax did not contact NationsCredit in regards to this dispute. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Let's back up. You said

in September of '99, what happened? A. This item was -- was reported to the

credit file in September of 1999. I have a report dated September 1999. Q. So at the time of that particular dispute

investigation, reinvestigation, you showed that it had most recently been reported in September of 1999 by NationsCredit? A. Q. Yes. Now, just so a little background.

Creditors such as NationsCredit would report to you on a monthly basis? A. Q. It depends on the creditor. Do you know about this particular

creditor, how often? A. Q. No. No. If the credit reports reflect that there

16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was a monthly, month-by-month reporting of this account so that we know that because of the last reported date keeps changing month by month -A. Q. Uh-huh. -- is that normal for certain creditors to

report month to month? A. Q. It depends on the creditor. But there are many that report on a

monthly basis, correct? A. To my knowledge, there are many that do

and many that don't. Q. Okay. In this particular case, according

to your reinvestigation record, you indicated that you showed that it had been reported in September of 1999 to Equifax as being an account with a derogatory status; is that true? A. Q. A. Q. That's correct. And what was the rating that was assigned? A I-5. Now, in -- in layman terms, what does that

method of payment rating mean? A. An installment account that is 120 days

past due. Q. A. Is that a favorable or unfavorable rating? It's unfavorable, generally speaking

17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unfavorable. Q. It would have a negative impact on the

consumer's credit score? A. It could, yes. MR. PERLING: I'll object to the extent that this witness is not being presented to testify as to effect of trade lines and credit scoring and hasn't been qualified to do so. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) You work day to day in the

customer service area of Equifax, correct? A. Q. Yes. You're familiar that a I-5 rating is a

poor rating in comparison on the rating scale of zero to nine; is that correct? A. Q. It is usually negative. Now, when you received the dispute in

December, on December 30 of 1999, could you tell me what reinvestigation efforts Equifax undertook? A. Processing the letter on January 3rd of

2000, and per an instruction from NationsCredit or within the system, this processor attempted to remove this account from the credit file. Q. A. Was that successful or unsuccessful? For the processor it was successful.

18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. It was successful. Let me first ask you

when you -- when you said that the -- and I'm going back over what you just told me, the steps and Equifax's reinvestigation. When you say they processed the letter on January 3, 2000, what does that mean? A. That means we received the letter at

Equifax on December 30th, and it was noted and processed into the system on January 3rd. Q. Okay. If you could break down that second

part of noted and processed in the system, what exactly does that mean? A. Q. A. Q. We started our case. You opened an ACIS case? Yes. Could you take me step by step through

that process as to what happens? A. Q. Beginning where? From the point that you received the

letter. You received the letter, you noted it, and you begin the processing of a ACIS case. MR. PERLING: Before you start. Let's discuss just briefly on the record the ity of some of this particular testimony. We'll get into

19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 processes and procedures of Equifax. We have just signed before starting the deposition a stipulation to submit to the court for ity. I would simply suggest without me stopping before every question and saying, you know, "I object, let's mark this part as ," that we mark the entire deposition as and that should you wish to use it for any other reasons, then we'll address, you know, witness information whether it's not, what parts need to be redacted. MR. SZWAK: I understand, and you're -- and I'll make this offer to you that you can mark anything as . We have the right to bring a motion to deem it not if it's ultimately determined by the court otherwise and if there's no presumption in favor of ity by our agreement to let it be marked at this time. Is that fair enough? MR. PERLING: Yeah. And I just thought for the ease of things, we'll just

20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mark the entire deposition. MR. SZWAK: Agree. Okay. Could you go back and read my last question, please. (The record was read by the reporter.) THE WITNESS: Letters are received in the mail room, counted, and distributed to the data processors. The data processor will read the letter, pull the consumer's credit file up in ACIS and begin the investigation process. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Now, when you say the

investigation process, what exactly does that entail? What are the procedures at Equifax with regard to a complaint like what the consumer had here? A. If the consumer is disputing something

that is inaccurate on the credit file and we don't have any prior instructions from the credit grantor, then we will send the credit grantor a consumer dispute verification form. If the credit grantor provides us instructions that will allow us to make changes without sending the consumer a dispute verification form, then the processor will follow those instructions. Q. Okay. Now, the CDV form, that's the short

21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for Consumer Dispute Verification form. Those can be sent by mail, by fax or by e-mail now; correct? A. Q. That's right. Is Equifax primarily using the ACDV or

automated CDV system now? MR. PERLING: I'll object on the grounds of relevancy. There's no evidence of any CDVs in this case, and whether Equifax has a prevailing now ACDV over CDV is completely irrelevant to the case, and I'm going to instruct the witness that -not to answer the question. MR. SZWAK: Well, we haven't even gotten to the question of whether there was a CDV or not. I'm asking her about the procedure. MR. PERLING: You're asking her whether there's a prevailing now at Equifax system of whether or not ACDVs prevail over CDVs, and that's completely irrelevant to this matter, doesn't have any relevancy to anything other than your general information regarding what Equifax's business is and has no relevance to this case.

22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SZWAK: Well, if she doesn't want to answer -- you don't want to answer the question, I assume. THE WITNESS: I -- I don't have any knowledge as the breakdown between CDV, the mail, the fax or the phone, I don't have that breakdown. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) As you look at your first

ACIS case, from January of 2000, does it appear that an ACDV was sent to NationsCredit or a CDV or can you tell? A. No, there was no CDV in any form sent to

NationsCredit. Q. Ordinarily when a CDV form would be sent

under your procedures that we've been discussing, do you then look for a response from the creditor? A. Q. Yes. And if the creditor tells you to delete

it, you then delete it; correct? A. Q. Yes. And if the creditor says to leave it on,

you then leave it on; is that correct? A. Q. A. Yes. Is that correct? That is correct.

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Essentially it is the creditor's word that

will ultimately govern the response, the reinvestigation by Equifax? A. Q. A. Q. Generally, yes. Are there exceptions to that rule? There are some exceptions. Where are those contained in the

procedures? A. They are written throughout the

procedures. Q. Do you have a set of your procedures with

you today? MR. PERLING: We do. Do you want me to get you a copy now, I literally forgot about them. MR. SZWAK: Let's just wait and see if we may need them. She may be able to answer the questions without them, but let's just see. MR. PERLING: But for the record I have them available and literally just forgot to bring them with me. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) In this case, if your --

if your normal process was to send the CDV to a creditor upon receiving a dispute, do you know why a

24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CDV was not sent in this case of this first instance? A. In the first -- excuse me, in the first

instance, as I look at the notes from the processor, it says suppress per -- per credit grantor. Q. Do you know how Equifax came into

possession of that information that a CDV was not sent to the credit grantor, to NationsCredit? Do you know how you came into possession of that directive? A. Well, in my experience I do know that our

processors follow the -- the system through, follow instructions of the system as they're processing paperwork from consumers. Q. Yes, ma'am. Let me ask you I guess more

directly. In this first instance, did this dispute come from the consumer or did it come from NationsCredit? A. Q. Consumer. Okay. And then when you got the

plaintiffs' dispute about this matter, through your normal processes you would have send a CDV to NationsCredit on the disputed account and asked them for their response. But I believe what you have told us is there was not a CDV sent in this case? A. Q. That's correct. And do you know how it is that Equifax

25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 determined that it should have been suppressed per the credit grantor? A. What we will do at Equifax is if a credit

grantor provides us with certain exceptions or rules, we will note them in the -- in the system for the processor to read and follow through. Q. Had NationsCredit provided you such an

exception? MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form. THE WITNESS: I can only assume. I don't have the specific instruction, but following what my processor did, I can say yes. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Okay. Do you know, was

there a standing exception from NationsCredit at any point in time given to Equifax which said basically if you receive a dispute about, similar to what the plaintiffs submitted, that Equifax is to just suppress the account? A. I don't have that knowledge specifically

for -- I don't have the specific knowledge. Q. Do you have the ability to determine

whether that is the case in this instance? A. I attempted to, but since this is a couple

years ago, I could not find those instructions.

26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Are your exception rules maintained

at Equifax for more than two years? A. No. Generally no. Unless the credit

grantor's name is changed or it's something about this specific account has changed, it is kept, but I couldn't find the specific instructions in regards to this specific account. Q. You believe that there may have been a

general exception provided to you prior, this would be something provided to you prior to the dispute by the plaintiffs in this case where NationsCredit provided you some direction as to handling all their disputes that came in? A. Not necessarily all, but this specific

member, member number or this specific account. Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, you

don't know what prior directives that may have been? A. Q. Hmm-mm, no. But what you can tell me is from reading

your documentation is that somewhere in your system there was a directive from NationsCredit to suppress this information about these plaintiffs? A. Q. Yes. Okay. And that had been received by

Equifax prior to the plaintiffs' dispute that you

27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were responding to on January 5? A. Q. Yes. Do you know, had Equifax previously

attempted to process a suppression on this particular consumer's credit report? A. Q. No, I don't know that. Did you find any documentation showing

that prior to January of 2000, that NationsCredit had specifically communicated with Equifax to suppress this disputed account from the plaintiffs' credit reports and that for whatever reason Equifax had not done so? A. No. The instructions basically, the type

of instructions that we receive at Equifax from different credit grantors is, for example, if a consumer disputes this account and it's, the day of last activity is X or the day of last report is X, then update per the consumer's request. So the instruction is not specifically for [Consumer 1] or [Consumer 2]. It's really for whomever is disputing the account. It's just blanket instructions that Equifax will receive from credit grantors from time to time in regards to the different accounts. Q. Would those ordinarily come by way of

28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Universal Data Form, or are these month-to-month tape reportings that may alter the information? A. It can come from Universal Data Forms, but

the type of instructions I'm speaking of is -- is coming from the credit grantors to our business unit. And when they want to like do a mass update, a lot of times credit grantors will say I can't verify an account over two years, so if someone disputes that account, they remove it. Q. Okay. But as we sit here today we don't

know what the problem was. We just know that there was some directives sent by NationsCredit to Equifax prior to January of 2000 directing some change on this particular reporting about the plaintiff? MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form. (By Mr. Szwak) Is that correct? Well, yes. The plaintiff and anyone else. Okay. Do you know if there were other

consumers who have complained about NationsCredit reportings that may have been affected by the same directive? A. Q. No. Is there a history of disputes involving

NationsCredit that has long been at Equifax? A. No.

29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. You do not keep an overriding log of

disputes on each subscriber? A. Q. No. Okay. And Equifax has no system by which

it can input the subscriber number and determine the prior disputes concerning a particular subscriber; is that true? A. They probably can. I have not done that

in the past. And I haven't -- and I don't know if that's done under general practice. Q. Okay. Do you know as we sit here today

whether there was a problem with the reporting perhaps in one of the metro tape fields across the entire set of NationsCredit accounts, or do you believe this was a single instance? A. I don't believe it was a single instance;

and no, I do not have the general knowledge of a problem with NationsCredit reporting. Q. Okay, but you don't believe this was a

single instance? A. I have not seen an instance where the

credit grantor would just give us instructions on two -- two or three individuals. It's normally the -- the masses. Q. Okay. And you have seen instances before

30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where perhaps a metro tape field is miscoded in some way and might affect an entire portfolio of customers who would all have complaints from that one furnisher; is that correct? A. Q. I have heard that in the past. But as we sit here today, we don't know

whether perhaps NationsCredit miscoded a metro field and affected their entire portfolio of customers with a negative rating or whether -- or we don't know what the problem was? A. Q. Oh, no, I don't know what the problem was. You just know that there was a directive

coming from NationsCredit that would have affected more than these two consumers; is that true? A. It is possible, but I know specifically

these two. Q. You know specifically on these two that it

was not just them that were affected by NationsCredit? A. No, I know -MR. GIORDANO: Objection to form. THE WITNESS: I know that these two accounts from NationsCredit we received instructions to update per that. But I don't know who else.

31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. (By Mr. Szwak) When you say these two

accounts, you're talking about the two plaintiffs in this case? A. Q. Yes. And you know that you received directives

from NationsCredit prior to January of 2000 to suppress this account; is that true? A. Not to suppress, but normally the

instructions is update per the consumer's request. Q. When your notation indicates to suppress,

was that an indication to suppress the trade or suppress some aspect of the trade? A. Q. Hmm-mm, to suppress the trade. Well, they had sent you a directive to

just take the entire trade off? A. No. Normally the update is per the

consumer's request, and it's up to the data processor to read the letter to find out what -- what actions to take. Q. Okay. And your data processor on January

5 of 2000 had indicated that they were going to suppress the entire trade off of these two consumers' files? A. Based on the letter they received, they

made the decision to suppress the trade.

32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. On [Consumer 1] and then on [Consumer 2], you Q. According to your ACIS case, is it --

isn't it true that NationsCredit was actively reporting the disputed account in January of 2000? A. Q. The account was on credit file. But it was also actively reporting on a

month-to-month basis. It had in fact reported by tape in January of 2000 as reflected on later ACIS cases; is that true? A. No. At the time of the investigation, the

most recent report was September of 1999. Q. Did you find on later ACIS cases where

NationsCredit had continued to report that account on a month-to-month basis? For example, I'd refer you to the April 27, 2000 ACIS case showing that it had most recently been reported on April 19 of 2000. A. That's on [Consumer 2].

can look at, for example, the June 27, 2000 or September 5 -- I mean July 5, 2000? A. Okay. On April 27th of 2000, I have the

most recent report date of January 2000. Q. You show it as having been reported in

January of 2000, correct?

33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Yes. So is it accurate to say to the jury that

in January of 2000, NationsCredit was actively reporting about that account on these consumers? MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form. THE WITNESS: Uhm, not really, no. (By Mr. Szwak) Okay. Well, how did it --

how did it come to be with a last reported date in January of 2000 if they did not report on it? A. When we attempted to remove it in January

of 2000, it changed the report date. Q. Okay. So it updated the last reported

date to January of 2000? A. Q. Yes. Did Equifax perform additional activities

which later updated the last reported date as reflected in the later ACIS cases? A. On Mrs. -- I'm sorry, [Consumer 2]'s

file, on June 26 of 2000, the NationsCredit report date was updated to June of 2000; and we had made the change on that credit file at that time. Q. Okay. So is it accurate to say that

NationsCredit had ceased the active reporting on these accounts in September of 1999? A. That's probably the last time we received

34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a report from them. Q. Is that your belief based upon your

records? A. Q. Yeah. So up until September of 1999, they would

have had these two plaintiffs with the disputed account with the derogatory report -- with a derogatory rating reporting on whatever basis, whether it be monthly or bimonthly, whatever basis they're reporting to Equifax, it was coming to you all until September of 1999; is that true? A. Q. It appears. Okay. And after September of 1999, there

was some discussion that Equifax was reinvestigating the continued disputes of the plaintiffs and that caused the last reported date to be updated on each occasion; is that true? A. Q. Yes. So an Equifax activity, an ACIS activity

will cause a trade line that's being reinvestigated to have a new last reported date if it is not suppressed? A. Q. That's right. Now, if it continues to appear on a credit

report as it did with the plaintiffs in this case, is

35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it your belief that the suppression function failed or did NationsCredit re-report the information? MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form of that question. THE WITNESS: The suppression function, it didn't fail, but there was an operator error. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Could you tell me what

type of operator error occurred? A. It appears as though the operator did not

properly suppress the account. Q. error? MR. PERLING: I'll object. That's general and vague in nature of an error. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) You've identified that an Could you tell me about the nature of that

error occurred? A. Q. A. Uh-huh. Can you explain that to me? Well, NationsCredit did not report an open

date. In order to suppress an account, we need an open date, the member number, and the account number. What we are to do if there is not an open date is to go in and make the open date the month prior to the date of last activity, and then suppress the account.

36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Now, if that open date is inaccurate, then

a subsequent reporting by NationsCredit would cause that account to reinsert into the credit report; is that true? A. Q. No, that is not true. Okay. Tell me then how the account would

continue to appear. A. It's needed to suppress, but those items

are not needed to keep the item from reinserting. Q. Okay. So when the operator at Equifax

attempted to suppress this particular account and there was no open date reported, then the suppression function does not work if there is no open date; is that correct? A. Well, no. This operator didn't suppress

it. They did not put a code in at all. So -Q. Well, do you know when this particular

error that we're discussing, when did this occur? A. Q. January 5th of 2000. Okay. Now, prior to January 5th of 2000,

you all had received some directives to suppress this account from these two consumers? A. Q. If investigated. NationsCredit told you to remove it only

if investigated?

37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. If investigated. And investigated means? Or disputed, if disputed by the consumer. Well, if NationsCredit knew it was

erroneous and had told you to remove it if it was disputed, why wouldn't that have triggered some question about accuracy to begin with? MR. PERLING: Let me object to your question. First of all, I think it misstates the witness's testimony. Her testimony has been that there was a code inserted into the file -- into the system that said update per consumer's request on a particular set of accounts. So you have misstated what her testimony is. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Let me ask you

whether Equifax was -MR. GIORDANO: Let me make my own objection to the form of that question before you start again, please. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Was Equifax aware of

the history of disputes by the plaintiffs to NationsCredit before January 5 of 2000? A. Q. No. No. But you all had received some coded

38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 transmission from NationsCredit that said essentially if the consumer complains to you, well, then comply with whatever they ask you to do and suppress? A. And let me just explain, in my experience

credit grantors will only send that information in if an account is too old to verify. Meaning if they do not have access, immediate access to review or to investigate accounts, then they'll send that information in. It's not necessarily from the creditor's standpoint that something is wrong and only if the credit grantor is disputing it, then you remove it. But what the credit grantors, in my experience what -- what I've known them to do is to say okay, we're not going to keep this particular information regularly available, but if this -- these consumers dispute, you know, XYZ on these accounts, then update per their request. Q. Okay. And then on January 5 of 2000, when

the operator at Equifax was reinvestigating this particular account on both plaintiffs' reports, they located this notation that indicated they should suppress. Is that what's reflected in the records? A. Hmm-mm. What's reflected in the records

is we have two people basically working on this particular file. We have the data processor who

39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 processed the letter and made the notation. Then we have the second person, which we call the file reviewer, maintenance reviewer, and they are to go back and make sure that the credit file is -- does or looks the way it's supposed to at the end of the investigation process. And then on January 5th is when the maintenance reviewer received this case and closed it out, and unfortunately through their error the account was not suppressed from the credit file. Q. Did this bypass two people, the person who

entered the suppression and the person who reviewed it? A. No. The data processor did their job.

They said a suppression code is needed. Update suppress per the credit grantor. It was the maintenance reviewer who was supposed to go in and actually add the suppression account, the suppression code to that account. Q. Who tracks it after that code is put in to

make sure that it actually attaches and suppresses? A. Q. It's the maintenance reviewer's job. So that person not only miscoded this,

didn't properly mark it for suppression, but then also failed to go back and check to see whether the suppression code attached?

40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. That is unfortunately correct. Okay. And this would have been, the same

would be true not only for [Consumer 1]'s credit report but also for [Consumer 2]'s credit report; is that correct? A. Yes. It was the same individual. Mr. PERLING: David, when you get to a breaking point, let me know in the next few minutes. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Let me ask you if it is

accurate to say from your ACIS case that NationsCredit claimed that the delinquency on this particular account had occurred in April of 1998? A. I'm just showing the date of last activity

as April of 1998. Q. Is that something that an activity in an

account would be triggered by some change as far as the balance or past due references? A. Or it could be the date that when the

account was noted as 120 days past due, reaching collection status. Q. And in fact, a change such as reporting

someone past due 120 days is something that does trigger a last activity notice in the file; isn't that true?

41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Q. A. Q. Yes, it can, yes. So if assuming that this -- assuming that

NationsCredit began reporting the account either favorably and at some point started changing that rating to negative, ultimately it reached a maximum of I-5 or 120 days late; correct? A. Yes. MR. PERLING: Objection to the form. (By Mr. Szwak) And that 120 days late

would have been referenced, at least according to your date of last activity calculator field in your report would be April of 1998, correct? A. Q. Yes. Okay. It certainly could have been before

April of 1998, but at least by April of 1998 that particular 120 days late notation was existing on file? A. Q. Yes. Thus, if NationsCredit took the position

that it was not until June 12 that they claim that a bad check date had been noted on their reporting system on their files, there would be no way to have 120 days late reference in April of 1998 -MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form. (By Mr. Szwak) Just by, it wouldn't have

42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. appeared on your records through any other means? MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form. THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't know. MR. GIORDANO: Excuse me, objection to the form. You said June 12th and you didn't give what year of June 12th. MR. SZWAK: 1998. THE WITNESS: I still wouldn't know. (By Mr. Szwak) Okay. What I'm going to

ask you, though, is Equifax would have not just gone in and posted a late notice on this particular set of consumers' trade lines from NationsCredit, correct? A. Q. No, we wouldn't. Any information that you report in that

file comes from NationsCredit, correct? A. Q. Yes. You have their approval and their

authority to report that information? A. Q. Yes. So it's with their blessing that you

basically rereport the information that they supply you? MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form. THE WITNESS: We have their

43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 authority. They have -- they have our -we have their authority. MR. PERLING: Is this a good time? MR. SZWAK: Sure. This would be good, because we're getting ready to go into another ACIS case. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. (A recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by. Back on the record. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Before we leave that first

ACIS case, did it -- did it reflect that NationsCredit had reported to Equifax a past due balance of over $10,000 on that trade line, the disputed trade line? A. 10,000. Q. A. Q. Is that under ten or over ten? No, it just says 10,000, 10 K. Okay. And that would not be information Yes, it has that past due balance of

Equifax would have put into that field. That was information that came from NationsCredit? A. Q. That's correct. And to your knowledge, at Equifax, you do

not know of any other consumer problems involving the

44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NationsCredit subscriber number being reporting inaccurate information over a whole portfolio? A. Q. No. And as of January 5 of 2000, this

particular account had been reporting in the credit reports predating January 5 of 2000; is that correct? A. Q. Yes. To my knowledge. Now, as a result of the ACIS case, we'll

call it the January 5, 2000, there was a reinvestigation results provided to [Consumer 1]; is that correct? A. Q. Yes. And there was also a ACIS case response

reinvestigation result sent to [Consumer 2], the other plaintiff; is that correct? A. Q. Yes. And could you tell me what was noted on

that reinvestigation results notification? A. Q. In regards to NationsCredit? Yes, ma'am, and for purposes of today,

when we talk about the disputed account or the account, we're referring to the NationsCredit account unless we designate another. Is that fair? A. Q. That's fine. Okay. Thank you.

45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. The letter to both plaintiffs says that

the item, this item has been deleted from the credit file. Q. Is there a distinction at Equifax between

deleted and suppressed? A. Q. Within Equifax, yes. What is the distinction, to your

knowledge? A. Well, they both mean the same. They both

mean the same, suppress means that there is an actual code added to prevent the audit from reinserting. Q. And that particular coding is dependent

upon the keying of the account number, the creditor subscriber number -A. Q. And the open date. And the open date. Those three items must

be present and must be noted in order to suppress it? A. Q. That's correct. Now, after January 5 of 2000, do you know

when Equifax next received any communication regarding this account or from the plaintiffs? A. I hope I'm not out of order, but I believe

it's April 27th of 2000. Q. Yes, ma'am. My log that I've done here

shows April 27 of 2000 with regard to [Consumer 1]?

46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Yes, that's right. And that's from the records that you

provided me. And could you tell me what happened on that date? A. On this date we received a phone call on

April 19th of 2000 and don't know what was stated, but the processor removed the item from the -- the credit file. Perfect. Q. Now, was this done on both [Consumer 1]'s and

[Consumer 2]'s report or just [Consumer 1]'s? A. Q. Hmm-mm, just [Consumer 1]'s. Do you have any information about why it

was not also removed from [Consumer 2]'s report? A. Q. No, I don't have any information. Now, the ACIS copy that is printed, for

example, for April 27 of 2000, is there an earlier ACIS print that was generated or is that the post maintenance -- is that the post maintenance copy or is that the pre-maintenance copy? A. No. This is generated after maintenance

is completed. Q. Okay. So that the copy that you produced

to me would be the post maintenance copy? A. Q. Yes, it is. And that would account for the preexisting

47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inquiry notation showing the same date? A. Q. Correct. Now, to your knowledge, did -- had Equifax

also received some communication from a mortgage broker or mortgage company indicating that the disputed NationsCredit account with derogatory status was still appearing on their credit report? A. No. The consumer appears to have provided

information in regards to a mortgage broker; but Equifax did not receive any information from that mortgage broker. Q. You had information showing that they were

in the process of trying to refinance or finance and that they -- they -- that this item was coming up on their report? A. [Consumer 1] appears to have, uhm, asked for

a rush, because there was a mortgage pending. Q. Is it your belief that that account would

have continued to appear in [Consumer 2]'s credit report after April 27? A. I can't say for certain. I don't have

that file. Q. Let me ask you, when you -- when you

suppress a particular account, it would only impact that one consumer's file, it wouldn't impact any

48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other persons associated with that account, correct? A. Q. That's correct. So in order to have taken it off both

reports, there would have had to have been a suppression from [Consumer 1]'s report and a separate suppression invoked in regard to [Consumer 2]'s report? A. Q. That's right. Did you all send a reinvestigation results

or response to [Consumer 1] based upon that maintenance? A. Q. A. file. Q. But your belief is on that date it was Yes. On April 27th. And what did that indicate to [Consumer 1]? This item has been deleted from the credit

actually suppressed? A. Q. Yes. Do you know how they would have been able

to invoke a suppression function on this account if it still did not have an open date? A. Then the maintenance reviewer would have

done what they were supposed to have done. Go in and add the day of last or the month before the day of last activity and then suppress that item. And the NationsCredit is not reporting on this credit file,

49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so it appears that they did what they were supposed to do. Q. So it looks like the -- the -- the post

maintenance report actually shows that it was taken off, correct? A. Q. That's correct. Now, on the prior ACIS case of January 5,

the post maintenance report still shows that on the account? A. Q. Yes, it does. Is it your belief that as of April 27,

that this item was taken off of [Consumer 1]'s report, never to appear again? A. Q. That is my belief. Now, was there a subsequent ACIS case

opened on [Consumer 1] on May 1 of 2000? A. Q. A. Q. A. Uh-huh, yes. What is the -Yes, there was. What was the purpose of that ACIS case? Received another phone call from [Consumer 1]

on May 1 and it appears as though he asked for a revised copy of the credit file to be sent to First Choice Funding to the attention of Zandy Carter. Q. And you all took care of that for him?

50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Yes, sir. And to your knowledge, there was no

maintenance performed on May 1 of 2000; correct? A. Well, a maintenance reviewer would have to

go in and send that F 2 -- or what we call an F 250, the revised copy to the credit grantor, so yes, there is. Q. But there wouldn't have been any

manipulation of the data. It just would have been accessing the corrected report; is that true? A. Q. That's true. And if we could, let's turn our attention

now to [Consumer 2], and let me ask you about activity involving her file or communications with her after January 5 of 2000. Do you -- do you know when your next communication that you took some action on her behalf? A. 2000. Q. And that would have been presumably from Received a phone call on June 19th of

the consumer or does it -- do you know, have a note as to who called? A. No. There's no note that someone other

than the consumer called, so. Q. You would assume it was the consumer?

51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Yeah. Okay. And do you know what her dispute

was at that time? A. Made reference to the balance of a -- a

past due balance of a NationsCredit account. Q. And you believe that that's the 10,000

plus dollar past due balance and negative rating that we've been discussing? A. The 10,000 -- well, specifically here in

ACIS case $10,942 and the balance of $844. Q. Okay. So she was -- she was complaining

that this -- this account should be paid in full, not showing a past due balance or negative rating or the balance of 844? A. Not -- not showing a dispute in regards to

the status, but just the balance. That there was no past due balance. Q. A. You said there's no past due balance? Well, no, I'm showing that the dispute was

geared toward the past due balance and the balance, not the status. Q. Okay. Well, assuming that she's

contesting a past due balance as not existing, that would be a dispute as to past due at Equifax; isn't that correct?

52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Not necessarily. Because if an account,

for example, does have a past due balance and it's a charge off or a collection account, once you paid that balance off, it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't past due at that time, then we will go in and zero out the balance and the past due balance. Q. Is that the -- the sum of the detail

that's contained in the ACIS case is that she had disputed these -- these particular fields? A. Q. Yes. Okay. What type of activity did Equifax

initiate based upon her dispute? A. The operator received more detail here, an

alert, and we updated per the consumer's request, so it says update per alert, and they updated the zero, updated the balances to and the past due balances to zero. Q. A. What is the alert system? That again is where a credit grantor would

give us specific instructions as what to do if a consumer disputes an account or a particular account. Q. Is this a specified system within Equifax

that will flag those trade lines when they are under review? A. It's still a part of ACIS; but the

53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 processor will see that once -- once they flag the account, the alert will come up and say this particular credit grantor wants you to do X, Y and Z. Q. Okay. So, for example, if a -- if a

consumer were contesting a Sear's account and you went to highlight the Sear's account to perform an ACIS activity, there might be a separate flag or window that would open up all the screens that says we have special directives per the alert system from this subscriber? A. Q. That's generally, yeah. And so in this case, when this particular

operator was looking at [Consumer 2]'s dispute, an alert notation came up indicating that they were to update and suppress or what was -- what was -A. Normally the alert -- yeah, normally

what -- what I've seen is the alert will say update per the consumer's request. And you would basically have to hear what the consumer was disputing or read what the consumer was disputing to let you know what action to take. If it was the balance, we would just update the balance per the consumer's request. Q. Now, did this alert mechanism indicate to

Equifax that they should update the report to show that it showed this account as paid in full?

54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I really don't know. I'm assuming because

from my experience in what, you know, what I've normally seen in the past, but I don't know what the specific alert was. Q. Well, let me ask you -MR. PERLING: Let me object to your questions because I think you're getting into an asked and answered area. When she talked about the first ACIS case, she talked all about the system of alerts. And you're re-asking those same questions as to whether or not the alert says a specific account on a specific person as opposed to in general. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Well, there's some

directive being provided to you, correct? A. There is some directive. That's what --

that's what the instructions here tells me from this process. Q. Doesn't the ACIS response that you have in

front of you for June 26 of 2000 indicate that Equifax did not delete the account but was to, quote, update or update it to report as paid in full, end quote? A. That's right.

55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So that's -- that's what the alert system

would have afforded you as a -- as information on what to do on that account where [Consumer 2] was concerned? A. Normally the system will say "update per

the consumers request," and we have to denote what the consumer is disputing on the account and act upon that dispute. Q. Okay. And your belief is that as of that

time, [Consumer 2] was asking you to simply update it to show it as paid in full? A. Q. That's correct. And as far as Equifax was concerned, there

was no information directing it to remove a derogatory status? A. Q. No. Now, on June 26, did your post maintenance

copy of the report reflect the change that was noted? A. Yes. There is no balance and there's no

past due balance. Well, they're showing zero. Q. But the derogatory I-5 rating, the

historical information showing a negative status is still contained on the file? A. Q. It is still reporting I-5. But when this -- is it correct to say that

56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when Equifax has an alert notation in its system, that it does not undertake to communicate with the creditor directly? A. alert. Q. Was there an ability on June 26 of 2000 to That's true. That's the purpose for the

look back at the ACIS case of January 5, 2000? A. I cannot say for certain that there was at

that time. Q. The procedures at Equifax would not permit

an Equifax employee to look back at a prior ACIS case just five months earlier to determine what was the conflict or dispute at that time? A. They can go back and ask for the

documentation, a supervisor or manager can. The phone rep, or data processor, they will have access to a previous case; but they may have to order the documentation. At June 2000, I don't know how long an ACIS case was available for a phone rep. That's why I can't answer if this particular person was able to see that from January, but it is always available in a hard copy form for a supervisor or a manager to ask for. Q. When someone reviews the file in an ACIS

case, does it contain historical notes attached to

57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. that particular file where they can revisit the text comments of the prior operators that handled this file? A. I'm sorry, can you ask that again? MR. SZWAK: Can you read that back, please. (The record was read by the reporter.) THE WITNESS: Yes. (By Mr. Szwak) Okay. It appeared from

the January ACIS case that there was discussion about the delinquency appearing on there? A. Q. Uh-huh. And there was even supposed to be a

suppression at that point in time. Was that information available on June 26 of 2000? A. I'm not sure if it was available to the --

to the phone operator. Q. Do you believe that a phone operator

actually performed this ACIS case? A. Q. A. Q. Oh, yeah. In June of 2000? Yeah. Is it correct to say that NationsCredit

was still reporting by tape in June of 2000 this particular disputed account? Or do your records

58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reflect that they were not? A. I do not believe they were reporting by

tape, no. Q. You believe they had ceased reporting back

in September of 1999? A. Q. Yes. Now, did you receive, or when was your

next communication regarding [Consumer 2]'s credit report? A. We received a -- we processed a letter

from [Consumer 2] on June 26 of 2000, was received in the office or received at Equifax on June 19th. Q. Okay. Now, that would have been the same,

that's the same day, that's June 26th; correct? A. Q. Yes. Okay. And we've discussed that on that

day y'all suppressed the trade, is that June 26 of 2000? A. No. No. On June 26, we updated the

balance to show zero. Q. I'm sorry, you're correct, you updated to

show zero balances on the past due column and also on the balance column? A. Q. Yes. After that date, when was your next

59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 communication regarding [Consumer 2]'s report and that disputed trade line? A. Q. After the June 26th? Yes, ma'am. MR. PERLING: By the way, we can go off for a minute. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. (Discussion ensued off the record.) MR. PERLING: We can go back on now. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by. Back on the record. THE WITNESS: Oh, we received a phone call July 5th, 2000. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Before we go to July 5 of

2000, is it true that on June 27 of 2000, Equifax generated credit reports on [Consumer 2] and sent them to First Consumers National Bank and Beneficial National Bank or is that -A. Q. No. That's somebody else. Okay. Okay, I see. So then the next

contact would be July 5 of 2000, correct? A. Q. That's correct. I have a notation that there may be a

missing ACIS case in the chronology from June 19 of 2000, does it appear there was ACIS activity on June

60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 or would that just be logging in the letter? A. The phone call was received on -- wait a

minute. The phone call was received on June 19 and that case, that ends in 3980. Q. Okay. On July 5, do you have a copy of

the ACIS case from July 5, 2000? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. And that's on [Consumer 2]? Correct. And could you tell me what happened on

July 5 that prompted this ACIS case? A. We received a phone call from

[Consumer 2]. Q. A. Okay. And what did she say at that time? I don't know what she said; but the

operator intended to remove the NationsCredit account from the credit file. Q. You say "intended." Was she successful in

doing that? A. Again, the operator was successful in

providing the correct instructions. Operator, the maintenance reviewer was not successful in adding an open date and properly suppressing the account and the credit balance. Q. So this is now the second time that this

61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has happened with regard to [Consumer 2]? A. Q. Unfortunately, yes. Is it the same maintenance reviewer as the

first instance or is it a different person? A. Q. It's a different person. Are they on the same Equifax team or on a

different team? A. That was 2000, I don't know. I don't

remember. Q. I just noted one of the operator's badge

number G-12? A. Q. That's correct. And we don't know the badge number of the

second operator? A. Q. A. Uh-huh, V-15. G-12 -- well -G-15 or Z-15? G-12 is this particular case, the July 5.

And the very first one was V as in Victor, 15. Q. I showed from your ACIS case of January 5,

2000, the notation of operator G-12. A. They placed the case on hold. But they

did not complete the case. They did touch it and for whatever reason, it could be various reasons, went to the restroom, had to go on break, go to lunch, went home, they placed that case on hold. V-15 went back

62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 behind them and finished the case out. Q. A. Q. And that was in January? Yes, that was the January case. And then you're -- I think what you're

telling me is that then along in July of 2000, the same G-12 individual actually handled -A. Q. The maintenance. [Consumer 2]'s, that's the maintenance

review part? A. Q. Yes. So at least we have this one common person

involved in both of these instances? A. Q. A. Yes. Do we know the identity of that person? No. Because it was two years ago. I

couldn't find out. Q. Do you -- do you maintain a historical

listing of badge numbers? A. We do, but I just didn't have enough time

to get it. MR. PERLING: We can supplement and provide that to you. MR. SZWAK: Okay, I would appreciate that. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Okay.

63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. (By Mr. Szwak) Now, on January 5 of 2000,

the post reinvestigation report continues to show the I-5 derogatory rating of 120 days late? A. Yes, the NationsCredit for 120 days late,

it is still reporting on the credit file on January 5. Q. And again, it updated the last reported

field to July of 2000? A. Oh, wait a minute. No. I need to go back

to the previous question. If we're speaking in regards to July of 2000, the report date at that time was June of 2000, and the report date had been updated at that time to July of 2000. Q. Okay. So in the future after July 5 of

2000, any third parties who would have received [Consumer 2]'s report would still see the NationsCredit account; is that correct? A. Q. Yes. They would still see the I-5 derogatory

rating, correct? A. Q. A. Q. That's correct. And that's in the current status field? Yes, it is. And they would also show that the date of

last reporting on that account was July of 2000,

64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correct? A. Q. Yes. Now, does it show in the July 2000 post

maintenance report that was printed that NationsCredit claimed that the plaintiffs were 120 days late as of September of 1999? A. Q. Yes. All right. Do you have any information

about why that, why did that field change from the prior date that had been shown as the alleged date that they were 120 days late? MR. PERLING: Let me object to your question, because I don't think it correctly states the facts of her testimony. I don't know that she ever testified that there was a different date. Maybe you could point to where you're talking about. MR. SZWAK: I'm talking about the first ACIS case from January of 2000. THE WITNESS: Okay. And the first -I'm sorry. Can you please -MR. SZWAK: Can you please read that back for us, please. (The record was read by the reporter.)

65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. (By Mr. Szwak) All right. Let me restate

the question because that doesn't even sound very good. A. Q. Okay. If I understand the post maintenance ACIS

credit report copy from July 5 of 2000? A. Q. Okay, we're on July 5, right? Right. We're on July 5 on [Consumer 2].

It shows that NationsCredit is indicating 120 days late as of September of 1999; is that true? A. Q. That's correct. Now, in the prior ACIS case from January

of 2000, when we look back to the origin of this complaint from your records involving the consumers complaining about it, am I correct to say that at that point in time NationsCredit had claimed that the delinquency had occurred in April of 1998? Or is that not correct? A. To be honest, I'm -- this confuses me. I

don't know. Q. Can you reconcile those two statuses as

shown to be the reportings of NationsCredit? A. No. I haven't seen the -- in the prior

paying history 120 days past due in September of 1999, and then I have the date of last activity of

66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. April of 1998. Q. Do those appear to be terribly

inconsistent? MR. PERLING: I'll object to your characterization of terribly inconsistent as opposed to mildly inconsistent or simply inconsistent. THE WITNESS: I can't explain it, no. (By Mr. Szwak) You can't explain it? No. MR. PERLING: I hate to do this again to everybody, I have to take a break. That's part of life. THE WITNESS: No more coffee. (Discussion ensued off the record.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by. Back on the record. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) From looking at the last

ACIS case from July 5 of -- I'm sorry, I said last. It is the last ACIS case that was produced from July 5 of 2000 with regard to [Consumer 2], did you find that NationsCredit had reported a second time 120 days late in January of 2000? A. Q. There is a two times 120 days late. Now, from your records you show that this

67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 account actually did not get suppressed from [Consumer 2]'s report from July 5 of 2000; is that correct? A. Q. Hmm-mm. No. I'm sorry. I'd like to show you a few documents that

were presented in the -- and just so you know, we're probably through with the ACIS cases unless you need to refer to them. I would like to show you a few what you all call Universal Data Forms that were produced, and we'll talk about them one at a time. The first one was marked as Exhibit F, as in frank, in the deposition of [NationsCredit employee], from NationsCredit. I want to ask you whether Equifax had received -- I'm sorry, that's a Form UDF. Are you familiar with Exhibit F as being a Form UDF? A. Q. Yes. And let's turn to Exhibit G. Exhibit G to

the deposition of [NationsCredit employee] with NationsCredit is a Universal Data Form. Can you tell me whether Equifax received this particular Universal Data Form? A. I don't know if we received this

particular one, no. Q. Do you know whether Equifax received any

Universal Data Form from NationsCredit pertaining to the plaintiffs in this case and pertaining to the

68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contested account? A. Q. No, I don't know. Does this appear to be a correct format

for a Universal Data Form? A. Q. It does appear to be a correct format. And it is dated and signed at the bottom

by a representative who I'll represent to you to be someone from NationsCredit. But as far as Equifax's records, as you sit here today, you can't tell whether this Universal Data Form was received or not received? A. Q. No, I can't tell. Would a Universal Data Form such as this

trigger an alert mechanism in the Equifax system? A. Q. A. Q. No. It would not? No. The purpose of a Universal Data Form would

be what? A. To make the change to a particular line on

a consumer credit file. Q. It is intended to be a -- a change at that

time, correct? A. Q. Yes. I mean, it's not for delayed purposes in

69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. the event the consumer complains; true? A. Oh, no. When we receive it, we make the

change immediately. Q. Now, if NationsCredit had sent Equifax a

directive that in the event the consumers complain, then update per the consumers' complaint but at the same time had allegedly created Universal Data Forms to send to Equifax, those would be inconsistent with each other, would they not? A. Q. No, not necessarily. Okay. Could you tell me, why would

someone send you a Universal Data Form with the directives that are on this Universal Data Form and yet at the same time send you an alert mechanism? A. Well, the alert mechanism -MR. GIORDANO: Objection to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: Well, answer? (By Mr. Szwak) Yes, please. The alert mechanism again is really for a

series of accounts -- of accounts or a batch of accounts or a specific period of time, but when a credit grantor sends in a Universal Data Form it's more specific. They are saying I want you to update this particular person's file now.

70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And an alert mechanism is not for that

purpose, correct? A. Q. No. If Equifax had received a Universal Data

Form, would an ACIS case have been opened? A. Q. No. So Universal Data Forms are handled

separately from ACIS cases? A. Q. That's correct. ACIS is a reinvestigation result based

upon -- or reinvestigation and reinvestigation result based upon a consumer contacted dispute, correct? A. Q. Yes, only for consumers. And on the other hand, a Universal Data

Form is a directive from the creditor to make an instant manual change in some information or perhaps a revelation or suppression? A. Q. That's correct. I'd like to show you a Exhibit F to

[NationsCredit employee]'s deposition? MR. PERLING: That's Exhibit H. MR. SZWAK: I'm sorry, Exhibit H, you are correct, I'm sorry about that. MR. PERLING: That's okay. You're going backwards.

71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SZWAK: These are all right in order, and I'm looking at them upside down too. Q. (By Mr. Szwak) This Exhibit H, does

it appear to be a -- the same type of form for Universal Data Form? A. Q. It does, yes. And this one appears to be typewritten and

dated September 18 of 2000. A. Q. Uh-huh. I assume your answer would be the same,

that you have no information about whether or not this particular directive was sent to Equifax or received by Equifax? A. Q. No, I don't. Is there any location within your files of

Equifax where you would look for some information about whether a UDF had been received? A. Q. No. Who actually performs UDF maintenance for

Equifax? A. We have a maintenance department

specifically that handles Universal Data Forms. Q. A. Are they located here in Georgia? No, they're in Florida.

72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Where at in Florida? St. Pete. St. Pete. And are all Universal Data

Forms transmitted to the St. Pete office? A. Q. Yes. And do they have a computerized system

there for retaining copies of Universal Data Forms? A. Q. I don't know. Do you know whether you or anyone at

Equifax has investigated to determine whether or not such documents exist in St. Pete, Florida? A. I have never -- I have never seen a

Universal Data Form retrieved from -- from previous time. Q. Is it -- is there any computerized record

that you have ever seen that indicated that a Universal Data Form had been received or acted upon within the system? A. Never. I've never seen a record of a

Universal Data Form ever received. Q. In your prior testimony and testimony here

today, are you ever able to determine or testify about whether manual maintenance was performed in a file? A. Manual maintenance? Only through ACIS

73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cases, but not from a Universal Data Form. Q. So, for example, is it possible that

someone in manual maintenance down in St. Pete could be performing one type of transaction while someone here in Atlanta through the ACIS system could perform a different transaction on the same account, same person, same file? A. Well, if they're suppressing the account

because we're using the same system, but if they're suppressing the account, then we can't touch it because it's gone. But if they're making an update, yes, we can go back and change it just as if a creditor were to send a new tape or new reporting. Q. Does your office ever receive

communications directly from the credit grantor? A. Q. Through the CDV. Through the CDV. But does your office

ever receive communications from the manual maintenance center in St. Pete, Florida? A. Q. Oh, no. If it is NationsCredit's contention at

some point in time that these Universal Data Forms were actually sent to Equifax. Do you have any information about whether that's true or not? A. No, I don't.

74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do you know who in Equifax would have that

type of information? A. Q. Specifically, no. I don't know. Okay. Would it be someone in the St.

Pete's office? A. Q. A. believe. Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, if you That would be the assumption, yes. Do you know anyone in the St. Pete office? Elaine Bruno, that's the manager, I

were -- were researching a consumer dispute to your office, you would have no ability to access the UDF records; is that true? A. UDFs. Q. I would like to show you yet a third CDV No, I don't have the ability to access

which has been marked as Exhibit K to the deposition of [NationsCredit employee], which purports to be a March 29, 2001 Universal Data Form from NationsCredit to the credit reporting agencies. I assume your answers would be the same, you have no idea whether this was sent by them or received by Equifax or acted upon? A. Q. A. No. Is that true? That's true. My answers are the same.

75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And if I understand correctly, any UDF

activity would not display on your ACIS case at all? A. Q. Oh, no, not at all. What about in the form of prior Equifax

inquiries, would prior Equifax inquiries show up on your ACIS case? A. Q. I'm sorry. Prior -Let me back up and ask you this, let's

assume that someone at the St. Pete office had accessed the plaintiffs' credit files for the purpose of making a UDF update, would that have logged in an inquiry on their credit report? A. No, not an inquiry. Only if they suppress

an account for a UDF, it will say suppress per UDF, and that's the only time I will ever see it. Q. And in this case you didn't see any

notations on any of these files that say suppress per UDF? A. Q. No. Is it your belief that if a UDF had

actually been sent to Equifax and acted upon, any one of the three UDFs that I showed you where it references to remove the delinquencies or suppress the account, that in that instance you would have seen some suppression flying when you pulled up one

76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of these ACIS cases indicating that manual maintenance by the St. Pete office? A. Yeah, the -- the item wouldn't have been

on the credit file. Q. Okay. Just give me just one quick minute. Ready. I think I just have a couple of questions. To make sure that I have asked you this question, could you tell me, according to your records you don't know show that you ever sent a CDD or a CDV to NationsCredit; is that true? A. Q. That's true. And there was a phone number listed in the

records of NationsCredit as (800) 763-1312. Do you identify that as an Equifax number, just from your knowledge? I know you may not know every number, but I'm just curious, does that sound like it's one of the phone numbers that you're familiar with? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Would you say that again? It would be 1-800-763-1312. It would be for Equifax? I don't know. I don't know what that number is. It's now disconnected when you call it as

of the initiation of the litigation, but I'm just curious if you might have known historically who it

77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was. [Redacted] testified that she could not tell us what it was. A. No. MR. SZWAK: I believe that's all the questions I have. I appreciate your coming. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. GIORDANO: No questions. MR. PERLING: You're free to go, ma'am. THE WITNESS: Oh, wow. I'll go back to work. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. MR. PERLING: For the record, the witness will read and sign the deposition. MR. SZWAK: I would just like my copy in the interim. (Deposition concluded at 12:57 p.m.) (Pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or O.C.G.A. 9-11-30(e), the deponent and/or a party having requested the right to review the deposition, making corrections and/or changes and signing, for that purpose the errata pages have been annexed hereto.)

78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 D 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Original Exhibits A through D have been attached to the original transcript.) Defendant Equifax Credit Information Services' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories 12 C Plaintiff's EFX Exhibit A B INDEX TO EXHIBITS Examination by Mr. Szwak --3 Examination Page INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS

Description

Page

Notice of Oral Deposition Duces Tecum 7 Defendant Equifax Credit Information Services' Objections to Plaintiffs' Notice or Oral Deposition Duces Tecum 8 Interrogatories To Defendant, Equifax Information Services, LLC 11

79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COLLEEN B. SEIDL, CCR-B-1113 My commission expires on the 7th day of October, 2006. STATE OF GEORGIA: COUNTY OF FULTON: I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the questions and answers thereto were reduced to typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing pages 1 through 77 represent a true, complete, and correct transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, and I further certify that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the regular employ of counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the result of said case. This, the 24th day of October, 2002. CERTIFICATE

80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 /s/ Colleen B. Seidl, CCR-B-1113 19 Signature of attorneys present: 20 /s/ 21 /s/ 22 /s/ 23 /s/ Return this form after review and/or signatures to the court reporter for inclusion in the record. 25 Please use reverse side for additional signatures. 24 Date: 10/18/02 COURT REPORTER DISCLOSURE DEPOSITION OF: [EMPLOYEE] Pursuant to Article 8.B. of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia which states: "Each court reporter shall tender a disclosure form at the time of the taking of the deposition stating the arrangements made for the reporting services of the certified court reporter, by the certified court reporter, the court reporter's employer, or the referral source for the deposition, with any party to the litigation, counsel to the parties or other entity. Such form shall be attached to the deposition transcript," I make the following disclosure: I am a Georgia Certified Court Reporter. I am here as a representative of Brown Reporting, Inc. Brown Reporting was contacted by the offices of Bodenheimer, Jones, Szwak & Winchell, LLP to provide court reporting services for the deposition. Brown Reporting will not be taking this deposition under any contract that is prohibited by O.C.G.A. 15-14-37(a) and (b). Brown Reporting has no contract/agreement to provide reporting services with any party to the case, any counsel in the case, or any reporter or reporting agency from whom a referral might have been made to cover this deposition. Brown Reporting will charge its usual and customary rates to all parties in the case, and a financial discount will not be given to any party to this litigation.

81 1 2 DEPOSITION OF [EMPLOYEE]/CBS

I do hereby certify that I have read all questions propounded to me and all answers given 3 by me on the 18th day of October, 2002, taken before Colleen B. Seidl, and that: 4 1) There are no changes noted. 5 2) The following changes are noted: Pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Official Code of Georgia 7 Annotated 9-11-30(e), both of which read in part: Any changes in form or substance which you desire to 8 make shall be entered upon the deposition...with a statement of the reasons given...for making them. 9 Accordingly, to assist you in effecting corrections, please use the form below: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page No. 23 24 25 Page No. Line No. should read: Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: 6

82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: DEPOSITION OF [EMPLOYEE]/CBS Page No. Line No. should read:

83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: DEPOSITION OF [EMPLOYEE]/CBS Page No. Line No. should read:

84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 If supplemental or additional pages are necessary, please furnish same in typewriting annexed to this 15 deposition. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Notary Public My commission expires: [EMPLOYEE] Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the day of , 20 . Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: Page No. Line No. should read: DEPOSITION OF [EMPLOYEE]/CBS Page No. Line No. should read: