## Facts

- Laura J. McKinnon, an attorney, represented several female patients who alleged Dr. Johnny L. Bakker committed dental malpractice by improperly touching them during dental treatments.
- During the dispute, McKinnon (through her office) obtained consumer credit reports concerning Bakker and his adult daughters, Teresa Bakker and Carrie Ann Bakker.
- The Bakkers sued, alleging the reports were requested from a local credit bureau in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
- After a bench trial, the district court found McKinnon obtained the reports as part of litigation tactics intended to pressure a settlement.
- McKinnon conceded the reports were obtained but argued they were not “consumer reports” because her purpose was professional/litigation-related, and alternatively claimed a “legitimate business need” connected to assessing collectability and potential asset transfers.

## Issues

1. Whether the credit reports obtained were “consumer reports” covered by the FCRA despite being sought for litigation purposes.
2. Whether obtaining an adversary’s (and related third parties’) credit reports for litigation strategy, settlement pressure, or pre-judgment asset assessment qualifies as a permissible purpose under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b.
3. Whether punitive damages of $5,000 per plaintiff for a willful FCRA violation were excessive or unreasonable.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the Bakkers.
- The court held McKinnon intentionally and willfully violated the FCRA by obtaining the Bakkers’ consumer credit reports without a permissible purpose.
- The court rejected McKinnon’s contention that litigation-related motives removed the reports from the FCRA’s coverage.
- The court upheld the compensatory and punitive damages awarded to each plaintiff, concluding the punitive awards were not excessive.

## Legal Principles

- A report is a “consumer report” under 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) based on the nature and source of the information and the type of report furnished by a consumer reporting agency, not merely on the requester’s stated motive.
- The permissible purposes in 15 U.S.C. § 1681b are exclusive; a claimed “legitimate business need” must fit within the statute’s specified contexts and cannot rest solely on general litigation interests.
- Obtaining consumer reports to evaluate an opponent’s assets, investigate possible transfers, or gain settlement leverage is not a permissible purpose under the FCRA.
- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, willful noncompliance supports statutory/actual damages and punitive damages; modest punitive awards may be sustained where the violation is intentional and deterrence is warranted.

## Conclusion

The court held that an attorney who procures an opposing party’s and related third parties’ credit reports for litigation advantage, without a statutorily authorized purpose, willfully violates the FCRA and may be liable for punitive damages.


Bakker v. McKinnon, 152 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 1998)