Collins v. Transunion LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRANS UNION LLC, 1
Defendant.
Case No. 1:24-cv-653
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
Magistrate Judge Bowman
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff William Collins, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant Trans Union LLC
in the Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County, Ohio. (Compl., Doc. 1-2, #7). 2
Specifically, Collins alleged that Trans Union violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) because it failed to correct information on Collins’ credit report. (Id. at #9).
Trans Union removed the case to this Court. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1, #1). On
September 5, 2025, Trans Union moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 13). When
Collins did not respond within the appropriate time, the assigned Magistrate Judge
entered a show cause order requiring him to do so, and advised Collins that failure to
respond by October 21, 2025, would result in the Court treating Trans Union’s
summary judgment motion as unopposed. (Doc. 14). That date has since come and
1 The docket lists Defendant’s name as Transunion LLC, but all of Defendant’s filings list its
name as Trans Union LLC. (See, e.g., Docs. 1, 13). Accordingly, the Court will refer to the
Defendant as Trans Union in this Opinion and Order.
2 The copy of the Complaint filed as Doc. 4 is missing a page, so the Court cites to the
Complaint attached to the Notice of Removal.
Case: 1:24-cv-00653-DRC-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
gone with no response from Collins. Accordingly, for the reasons set out briefly below,
the Court GRANTS Trans Union’s Motion (Doc. 13).
BACKGROUND
Collins 	alleges 	that 	he 	contacted 	Trans 	Union 	about 	certain 	claimed
inaccuracies in his credit file on several occasions, but his claim was sent to a “special
handling department” that could not offer any remedy. (Doc. 1-2, #9). As a result,
Collins claims he suffered “financial harm, emotional distress, and damage to his
business and personal credit.” (Id. at #11). Collins specifically asserted two claims:
(1) Trans Union violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) of the FRCA by failing to maintain
accurate information in Collins’ credit report, and (2) it failed to investigate and
correct that inaccurate information as 15 U.S.C. § 1681(i) requires. (Id. at #15–17).
On September 5, 2025, Trans Union moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 13).
Along with the Motion, Trans Union filed a Notice alerting Collins that Defendant’s
“motion may be granted and your claims may be dismissed without further notice if
you do not oppose the motion by filing an opposition brief … You must file your
opposition brief with the Clerk of the Court and serve a copy to defendant’s counsel
WITHIN 21 DAYS.” (Doc. 13-2, #237).
Once the twenty-one days for Collins to respond passed, Magistrate Judge
Bowman issued a show cause order for Collins to either respond to Trans Union’s
Motion or to show cause why the Motion should not be treated as unopposed. (Doc.
14). After the additional twenty-one days passed, Collins still had not responded or
Case: 1:24-cv-00653-DRC-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
filed any other document. So, on November 4, 2025, Trans Union filed a Notice of
Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition (Doc. 15). The matter is thus ripe for review.
LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The burden is on the moving party to conclusively show
that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986); Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339, 1347 (6th Cir. 1994). Once the
movant presents evidence that meets its burden, the nonmoving party may not rest
on its pleadings but must come forward with significant probative evidence to support
its claim. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Lansing Dairy, 39 F.3d at 1347. If the nonmoving
party fails to make the necessary showing for an element upon which it has the
burden of proof, then the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477
U.S. at 323.
Because the moving party bears the initial burden, even if the nonmoving
party “offer[s] no timely response to [a] motion for summary judgment, the District
Court [may] not use that as a reason for granting summary judgment without first
examining all the materials properly before it under Rule 56(c).” Smith v. Hudson,
600 F.2d 60, 65 (6th Cir. 1979). That said, “[w]hen a motion for summary judgment
is properly made and supported and the nonmoving party fails to respond with a
showing sufficient to establish an essential element of its case, summary judgment is
appropriate.” Stansberry v. Air Wis. Airlines Corp., 651 F.3d 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2011)
Case: 1:24-cv-00653-DRC-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
(citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–23). And if the nonmovant fails to point out a question
of fact, “reliance on the facts advanced by the movant is proper and sufficient.”
Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trs., 980 F.2d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 1992). At bottom, if the
nonmoving party “neglect[s] to respond to [the moving party’s] motion for summary
judgment,” the nonmoving party “forfeit[s] any objection” that it otherwise may have
made “to the motion.” Jenkins v. Foot Locker Inc., 598 F. App’x 346, 348 (6th Cir.
2015).
In its Motion, Trans Union argues it is entitled to summary judgment because
Collins did not respond to discovery, including Requests for Admissions, and Collins
has otherwise failed to prosecute this case. (Doc. 13, #215). The Court agrees with
Trans Union that Collins has failed to offer any proof in support of his claims, and by
failing to respond to the Requests for Admission, he has effectively admitted defeat.
Thus the Court need not, and does not, reach the issue of failure to prosecute.
When a party does not respond to a request for admission, the matter is
admitted and thus “conclusively established.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). And “matters
deemed admitted from a failure to respond to requests for admissions can serve as a
basis for granting summary judgment.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Stevenson, No. 1:15-cv-
376, 2017 WL 1968384, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2017) (citation omitted); see also
Goodson v. Brennan, 688 F. App’x 372, 376 (6th Cir. 2017) (holding such admissions
cannot later be overcome by other contradicting evidence). Here, Trans Union served
a set of requests for admission on Collins on January 15, 2025, by both certified mail
and email. (Doc. 13-1, #229; Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 13-3, #248). Collins’
Case: 1:24-cv-00653-DRC-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
response was due February 14, 2025, but Collins never answered the requests. (Doc.
13-3, #248). Therefore, Collins has conclusively admitted them.
True, Trans Union tries to carry that a little too far. Trans Union points to how
Collins admitted, for example, that he “does not have any state or common law claims
against Trans Union” and that “Trans Union has not violated any provision of the
FCRA with respect to [Collins].” (Doc. 13-1, #229–30; Doc. 13-3, #248). The problem
for Trans Union, though, is that purely legal conclusions are not appropriate
admissions under Rule 36, and admissions that “target[] the ultimate legal issue in
the case” are too close to that prohibition. United States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285,
293 (6th Cir. 2009). So these admissions do not doom Collins’ case.
That said, other factual admissions do. By failing to respond, Collins admitted
that “Trans Union followed reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of the information Trans Union reported with respect to [Collins],” and that
“Trans Union never furnished inaccurate information about Plaintiff in a credit
report to any third party.” (Doc. 13-3, #248). Those admissions foreclose Count One,
which alleges Trans Union failed to ensure the accuracy of his credit report as
required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). (Doc. 1-2, #15–17).
For Count Two, regarding Trans Union’s alleged failure to investigate and
correct 	inaccurate 	information, 	(id. 	at 	#17), 	Collins 	admitted 	“Trans 	Union’s
reinvestigations 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	disputes 	regarding 	the 	information 	Trans 	Union
reported 	with 	respect 	to 	Plaintiff 	were 	reasonable.” 	(Doc. 	13-3, 	#248). 	These,
Case: 1:24-cv-00653-DRC-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
alongside the other admissions, are sufficient to support Trans Union’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
In sum, Trans Union’s Motion has been “properly made and supported,” while
Collins has “fail[ed] to respond with a showing sufficient to establish an essential
element of [his] case.” Stansberry, 651 F.3d at 486. Therefore, Trans Union has met
its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to either
count, entitling Trans Union to summary judgment. See PNC Equip. Fin., LLC v.
Rose, No. 1:13-cv-471, 2015 WL 12532122, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2015).
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	Trans 	Union 	LLC’s 	Motion 	for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 13). Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter
judgment and TERMINATE this matter on the Court’s docket.
SO ORDERED.
November 12, 2025
DATE 	DOUGLAS R. COLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ourt’s dockeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.	t.	t.	tttttt.	tt.	ttttttt..	ttt.	ttttt.	t.	ttttttt.	tttttttttttttttt.	t.	tttttttttttt.	tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.	ttt.	t.	tttttttttttttt.	ttttttttttttttt.	tttttttttttttttttt..	tttttttttttttttttttt.	t..	t.	tt.	t.	tt.	tt.....
GLAS R.	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R COL	O	O	O	O	O	O	O 	E
ED STATES DISTRICT JUD	U	U	U	U	UD	UD	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	UD	UD	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	UD	UD
Case: 1:24-cv-00653-DRC-SKB Doc #: 16 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>