These are probably a stupid questions, and if so, please just tell me kindly... Although I'm a down-on-my-luck debtor, I have the same concerns about identity theft as anyone else. When a Credit Card company files suit they include my name, address and the card name and complete cc account#. I understand the reasons for them to state the claim with particularity. But now specific identifying information is out there in the public domain; disclosed to any and all third-parties. I realize that if someone attempted to steal my identity and use that particular credit card the charges would probably be denied but...... would attempts like that re-trigger the SOL? Or could the info be used to set up other fraudulent accounts? What about post-judgement motions that specify active bank account numbers? It seems like there are so many laws to protect the consumer's privacy and account information under normal circumstances. Are they all suspended when a lawsuit (regardless of its merit) is filed? I understand that the party seeking affirmative relief waives the right to claim certain privileges - like if a pateint sues his doctor, he waives the doctor-patient privilege. But the reverse is not true - the doctor can't waive the patient's right to privacy. My question, basically, is whether a consumer who is being sued is entitled to any protection against the public disclosure of sensitive account information?
the charges will be denied, its a closed account. no it will not re-age the account. to open a new account they must have your ssn on top of that information. garnishment orders are only seen by court officials, the bank/employer, you and the marshall/sheriff.
I was going to ask the poster where he got the idea that all such information as he talks about being in court records as public information is available. Just imagine! If I could find any court record anywhere that I could use to find out all the information about people as he suggests I could get rich selling that information to the Russians, the Poles, the Romanians and so on. Maybe I could even sell it to the Iranians. Yes, there are (or were) internet websites out there where people do offer such information for sale to foreigners who then open credit card accounts or use the account information to buy stuff on the internet. These are usually people who work for banks, credit card companies and the like. Often they have found the information in a dumpster somewhere that should have been shredded or on a stolen computer. An interesting side note is that those foreigners who buy such information want the seller to give them at least 4 or 5 samples of the information they have so they can check to see that the information they are buying is valid. I guess they don't want to be swindled out of their money.
I've had clients entire credit reports published during the course of Rule 26 disclosures. The account numbers were in full display and available on Pacer among other prominent sources. These were not defaulted account either. With that said, such action gives rise to a vast array of privacy tort claims and they are actionable. The quickest way to resolve the matter is to request counsel (oppposing) redact the account number.
My understanding is that credit bureau reports now only show the last 4 of account numbers. Isn't that true? I can see how revealing the entire account number in court documents might give rise to privacy concerns but even very personal medical information can be revealed in court documents.
In the case of medical records being revealed in court documents, the patient must first waive his/her patient-physician privilege by asserting a claim for affirmative relief. It's a different situation when a debtor-defendant's personal account information is placed in the public record by the creditor-plaintiff who is the one seeking affirmative relief. Court documents, unless sealed or otherwise protected (juvenile court records) are ostensibly available for anyone to read upon request. Any pleadings are required to be filed; and discovery responses, including depositions, may be filed in whole or part in connection with various motions, such as motions for summary judgment, or if court rules so provide. I assumed that garnishment requests and orders are similarly filed with the court. It seems that any orders or summons that are to be executed would have to be recorded in order to be verifiable/valid. Thanks for the suggestion!
What I'm wondering about is the privacy concerns when complete account numbers accompanied by plaintiff's name, defendant's name and address, phone numbers and such are revealed in court documents. I'm wondering how all of that lines up with privacy issues and enablement of identity theft. Do you think that is an objectionable issue? Do you think there might be some way to turn that into an actionable issue?
The numbers are not redacted when Trans Union supplies the reports during a Rule 26 disclosure to Clerks of Federal District Courts. Why they do this I don't know but, they do it on occasion.
One reason might be that if they had to redact the account numbers then the account itself might become almost impossible to collect. I can see it all now. "Your Honor, we are here this morning to collect on account number xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-9876. The amount owing is $999.99 of which the defendant has paid nothing" "I object", says the defendant. "I never had a credit card nor an account with the numbers xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-9876." "Your Honor, we have to redact due to privacy laws. The actual account number is 1234-7890-4321-9876" "I object and demand that the Plaintiff's last statement be stricken from the record due to privacy laws and the enablement of identity theft" And the fight goes on from there. Doubt that would work out too well.
I understand the need for creditors to state their claim with particularity, and for defendants to know exactly what they are being sued for. And yet, it seems like the requirements for pleading with specificity have been around for decades, and were established long before there were the sort of concerns about identity theft that abound today. In my uneducated view, there's a conflict between the requirements for court procedures and the protections of consumer laws against disclosure of account information. But perhaps the federal laws contain specific exceptions for litigation? I suspect the issue has been addressed, and that I'm just in the dark about it?
Apparently some people are catching on to the fact that this is a problem..... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16813496/
