Expert Testimony Limited in Identity Theft Credit Reporting Dispute
Posted on August 19, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Oleksandr Panchenko, a Ukrainian national, first entered the U.S. in 2009 on a J-1 visa and received a Social Security Number. He lived intermittently in the U.S. until 2019, then returned permanently in April 2023 for work.
In May 2023, he discovered over $120,000 in fraudulent accounts on his credit report, including unauthorized cards, bank accounts, addresses, and employment records from periods when he was outside the U.S., confirmed by travel records. He reported the identity theft to Mountain View police, filed an FTC affidavit, and disputed the accounts with multiple banks and credit bureaus. Despite supporting evidence, the institutions allegedly failed to investigate or correct the inaccuracies.
As a result, false debts remained, leading to denied credit, higher deposits, and emotional and financial harm. To counter Comenity’s expert, Panchenko disclosed Douglas A. Hollon, a credit reporting professional, as his rebuttal expert witness.
Credit Reporting Expert Witness
Douglas A. Hollon is the Owner of Credit Experts of North Texas, LLC and has worked in the consumer reporting industry since 2005. At Experian, he handled escalated credit disputes for attorneys, regulators, and government agencies, served as Government Liaison, and testified as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness in about 20 Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) cases.
He has extensive expertise in identity theft disputes, credit bureau operations, credit scoring, and industry standards for FCRA compliance. Qualified as an expert in federal and state courts, Hollon holds a B.S. in Business Finance and multiple certifications in credit analysis, risk modeling, scorecard development, and lending compliance.
Discussion by the Court
Proper Rebuttal
The Court found that Hollon’s opinion on the adequacy of Comenity’s investigation was proper rebuttal to Ulzheimer’s testimony. Both experts reviewed ACDV forms and addressed whether Comenity’s investigation met industry standards. However, Hollon’s opinion that Panchenko was a victim of identity theft did not rebut Ulzheimer’s report and thus was untimely.
Exclusion of Identity Theft Opinion
Because Panchenko had asserted identity theft from the outset, he had ample opportunity to timely disclose expert testimony on the issue. The late disclosure was neither justified nor harmless, as it deprived Comenity of a chance to prepare a counter-expert. Accordingly, the Court excluded Hollon’s identity theft opinion.
Expert Qualifications
Comenity argued Hollon lacked qualifications because his background was with a consumer reporting agency, not a furnisher. The Court disagreed, finding Hollon’s 19 years in the credit reporting industry and his experience handling tens of thousands of identity theft disputes sufficient to qualify him as an expert on FCRA investigations and industry standards.
Legal Conclusions and Terminology
The Court emphasized that experts may not offer legal conclusions. While Hollon could critique Comenity’s investigation, he could not characterize it as “unreasonable” under the FCRA, as that term has a distinct legal meaning. Instead, he must explain inadequacies in practical terms without invoking legal standards.
Sufficiency of Facts and Data
The Court rejected Comenity’s claim that Hollon relied on insufficient facts. As a rebuttal expert, Hollon was not required to conduct his own investigation but could rely on his expertise to critique Ulzheimer’s analysis. Any perceived gaps affected the weight, not admissibility, of his testimony.
Held
The Court partially granted Comenity’s motion, excluding Hollon’s identity theft opinion and barring use of FCRA legal terms, but allowing him to rebut Comenity’s investigation and industry standards.
Key Takeaway:
The Court limited Douglas Hollon’s testimony, excluding his opinion that Panchenko was a victim of identity theft and restricting use of legal terms like “reasonable” under the FCRA. However, Hollon remains qualified to testify as a rebuttal expert on industry standards and the adequacy of Comenity’s investigation, ensuring the jury hears his critique while preventing him from offering legal conclusions or untimely opinions.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Panchenko v. Comenity Cap. Bank |
| Docket Number: | 23:cv04965-EKL |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Order Date: | August 13, 2025 |
