1 Christine Baker
2 Email: email@example.com
In Pro Per
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Christine Baker; )
11 ) PLAINTIFF CHRISTINE BAKER’S
Plaintiff, ) RESPONSE TO THE CAPITAL ONE
v. ) OBJECTION TO PORTIONS OF
13 ) PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT
Capital One Financial, et al; )
18 Plaintiff Christine Baker hereby responds to Defendant Capital One Bank’s
19 (“Capital One”) Objection to certain portions of her Affidavit in Support of her Objection
20 to the Capital One Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s Response is supported by
21 the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Exhibits.
22 DATED this 29th day of June, 2006.
/s Christine Baker
25 Plaintiff Pro Per
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff alleges that Capital One damaged her credit rating and FICO credit
4 scores by reporting the discharged account with recent incorrect bankruptcy and status
5 dates and by Capital One’s refusal to report the correct credit limits.
6 Plaintiff has over 15 years of credit experience, including several years of pre-
7 scoring (manual) mortgage underwriting, subsequent credit reporting and FICO credit
8 scoring research and credit consulting with emphasis on improving FICO credit scores.
[Exhibits O] While Plaintiff also used to offer extended services such as negotiations of
collections, she tried to limit her services to the FICO credit score analysis and
recommendations to increase FICO scores since 2003, as the litigation was very time
consuming and FICO credit scoring was Plaintiff’s primary interest.
It became much easier to determine WHY scores changed when Fair Isaac began
to provide to consumers the credit data lenders receive along with the actual score
factors and details such as the exact percentages of the utilized Balance/Limit ratios
17 [Exhibits M], how long ago the most recent delinquency occurred, the exact amounts of
18 delinquent balances, etc. Plaintiff often had the opportunity to review the FICO reports
19 and scores after changes to the reported data, including changes of the Experian status
20 dates for derogatory accounts.
21 Plaintiff is not aware of any legitimate classes or degrees for credit correction and
22 to improve FICO scores, as few people ever heard of FICO scores prior to 1994 and due
23 to the various scoring models and extremely complex concepts. In 2003, Plaintiff
24 opened her CreditFactors subscriber forum for consumers and mortgage professionals
25 who wish to learn about credit and FICO scores at http://creditfactors.com/. [Exhibits O
27 From about 1997 to 2003, Plaintiff researched credit reporting and FICO scores at
her public forums including http://creditforum.org.
1 Plaintiff is one of the most qualified experts to determine which incorrect data to
2 dispute to improve FICO scores.
3 II. ARGUMENT
4 A. Paragraphs 5 – 9, Foundation
5 As outlined above and in ¶ 2 of Plaintiff’s Affidavit, she is certainly qualified to
6 interpret Experian’s credit report. Amazingly, Capital One objects to ¶ 6:
7 The third column on the Experian consumer disclosures submitted by
8 Capital One as Exhibits 3 A-C is labeled “Date of status / Last reported.”
9 Aren’t 3rd grade reading skills the only qualifications required to read Capital
10 One’s exhibits, the Experian CONSUMER disclosures?
11 The careful examination of the columns, rows, labels and reported data on these
12 consumer disclosures indicates to anyone with above average analytical skills what
SHOULD be reported, no credit knowledge is required. Ideally, every consumer should
be able to determine which data is supposed to be reported and what needs to be
disputed. Unfortunately, Experian takes extreme measures to confuse consumers and
creditors and therefore most consumers cannot determine what to dispute and many opt
to pay Plaintiff for her expert advice.
Plaintiff’s assertions are supported by Capital One’s exhibits and based on her
B. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 24
22 Capital One claims that these paragraphs are “vague, ambiguous and wholly
23 conjectural” and in footnote 1, Capital One claims that “[i]n any event, the facts set forth
24 in these paragraphs do not raise any material issues of fact which would prevent this
25 Court from ruling in Capital One’s favor on its Motion for Summary Judgment.”
26 Again, as Plaintiff explained above and in ¶ 2 of her Affidavit, these statements
27 are based on her EXPERIENCE as a mortgage and credit professional and her “records
1 and personal knowledge” [Affidavit ¶ 3], evidenced by Exhibits M 1-4 and the Capital
2 One exhibits and they pertain to the essence of her claims and damages.
3 C. Capital One Acknowledged Plaintiff As A Qualified Expert
4 Capital One referenced in ¶ 5 of its Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for
5 Summary Judgment the “FICO Credit Scoring is FRAUD” web page from 1997 at
6 Plaintiff’s original website BayHouse.com.1
7 Capital One is obviously fully aware how long Plaintiff has been researching
8 credit reporting and credit scores.
9 D. Plaintiff’s Opinions Are Admissible
10 As a qualified expert, Plaintiff’s opinions in her Affidavit are admissible under the
11 Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 sets forth that a witness qualified as an expert by
12 knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an
13 opinion or otherwise if the testimony is based upon sufficient facts and data, the
14 testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness has applied
15 the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
16 The complicated nature of the testimony about the impact of reported data on
17 FICO scores requires Plaintiff to offer some opinions and conclusions based on years of
18 research and experience. Plaintiff does not claim to know everything there is to know
19 about FICO scores, as Fair Isaac continually modifies the scoring algorithms and the
20 CRAs modify and/or add data fields and she therefore welcomes any contradictory
21 documentation and opinions by other qualified experts.
22 Expert opinion is admissible and may defeat summary judgment if it appears the
23 affiant is competent to give an expert opinion and the factual basis is stated in the
24 affidavit even though the underlying factual details and reasoning upon which the opinion
25 is based are not. If further facts are desired, the movant may request and the district court
28 Unfortunately, Plaintiff has not had time to update her BayHouse.com site in years and in 1997, Fair Isaac did not
provide its complete reports with the score factors as at myFICO.com. Most likely, the COMPLETE reports would
have contained data changes and Plaintiff would be able to determine why the scores changed 24 points.
1 may require their disclosure. Bulthuis v. Rexall Corp., 789 F.2d 1315, 1318 (9th Cir.
3 In Bulthuis, the Court found that a district court’s ruling that a declaration of an
4 expert witness was not admissible evidence without a recitation of the facts upon which
5 the opinion was based, or that such declaration, while admissible, was insufficient to
6 create an issue of disputed fact barring summary judgment was “wrong on either
7 ground.” Bulthuis at 1317.
8 Fed. R. Evid. 705 provides that an “expert may testify in terms of opinions or
9 inference and give his reasons therefore without prior disclosure of the underlying facts
10 or data unless the court requires otherwise.”
11 Because many of Plaintiff’s clients were “Credit Activists” [Exhibit O-1] and
12 opted for the 50% discount so that she could publish credit reports and scores and use the
13 documents in court, Plaintiff is certainly willing and able to provide extensive additional
15 III. CONCLUSION
16 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court consider all
17 paragraphs in her Affidavit in Support of her Objection to the Capital One Motion for
18 Summary Judgment.
19 DATED this 29th day of June, 2006.
/s Christine Baker
22 Plaintiff Pro Per
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 29th day of June, 2006, I electronically transmitted the
foregoing to the Clerk’s Office using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a
Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
Kevin D. Quigley, Esq.
6 Kathleen A. Biesterveld, Esq.
Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
7 Attorneys for Defendant Capital One
Rodrick J. Coffey, Esq.
9 Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP
10 Attorneys for Defendant Equifax Credit Information Services
11 A copy mailed USPS to:
HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE
13 United States District Court
14 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 524
401 West Washington Street, SPC 52
15 Phoenix, AZ 85003
17 /s Christine Baker