The opinion of the court was delivered by: John F. Grady, United States District Judge
Before the court are two motions brought by plaintiff, Kevin D. Miller: (1) a motion to strike two of the affirmative defenses asserted by defendant Supportkids, Inc. ("Supportkids"); and (2) a motion to compel certain discovery from Supportkids. For the reasons explained below, the motion to strike is granted, and the motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA") against TransUnion LLC ("TransUnion") and Experian Information Systems, Inc. ("Experian"), which are credit reporting agencies, as well as Supportkids, Inc. ("Supportkids"), a private child support enforcement agency. Earlier this year, we issued a memorandum opinion denying plaintiff's and Supportkids's cross-motions for summary judgment. Despite denying the motions, we did deem it established that Supportkids did not have a permissible purpose under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) to request or receive plaintiff's consumer report. We emphasized, however, that our ruling did not establish that Supportkids was liable under any count of the complaint because plaintiff still has the burden of proving all of the elements of his claims, including the necessary mental state and, in several instances, actual damages--and Supportkids is free to rebut those remaining elements. (Memorandum Opinion of Feb. 28, 2007 at 15.)
After the issuance of our memorandum opinion, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, and defendants filed answers. Supportkids asserted several affirmative defenses, two of which plaintiff now moves to strike. Plaintiff also moves to compel "complete and non-evasive" responses to various interrogatories and requests for production that were served on Supportkids.
A. Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses
Plaintiff moves to strike Supportkids's affirmative defenses II (unclean hands) and III (estoppel). Supportkids indicates in its response brief that it is voluntarily withdrawing its unclean hands defense, so that leaves only the estoppel defense for discussion. That defense is as follows:
1. Any purported damages allegedly suffered by Miller, which Supportkids continues to deny, were the direct and proximate result of the conduct of Miller. Therefore, Miller is estopped and barred from recovery of any damages.
2. On or around July 12, 1990, Kevin Miller was ordered by the Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of Virginia in case number A38084-01-00 ("Domestic Relations Proceedings") to pay child support in the amount of $200 per month for the support of Kiona Sidbury, born to Alisa Sidbury on December 4, 1986.
3. Thereafter, on information and belief, Plaintiff failed to meet his child support obligation to Sidbury. Specifically, on information and belief, Plaintiff willfully and repeatedly failed to make payments required by court orders entered in the Domestic Relations Proceedings.
4. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's willful actions include:
(a) failing to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, and such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or greater than $5,000; or
(b) failing to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, and such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 2 years, or is greater than $10,000; or
(c) violating court orders entered in the Domestic Relations Proceedings.
5. Plaintiff is estopped from claiming any damages because Supportkids relied on his aforementioned actions to its detriment. (Supportkids's Answer to First Am. ...