is also asked to indicate whether they have ever been convicted of a felony, and to indicate the type and date of the conviction. The same paragraph cautions that inaccurate or false statements will disqualify the consumer from consideration. The paragraph authorizing procurement of the report also discussed the effect of a photocopy. Other courts have similarly determined that such informational items go beyond a disclosure from an employer. See Legrand, 2016 WL 1618135 at *4-5 (finding that a document which requests a consumer to “directly disclose whether they have ever been convicted of a crime” is not a document “consisting solely” of the disclosure.); see also Shoots et. al., v. iQor Holdings US Inc., 183 F.Supp.3d 950, 955-56, 2016 WL 1733437, *5 (D.Minn. April 29, 2016) (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s arguments to the contrary lack
holding that information disclosed to jurors as a result of their presence at trial ie that the defendant did not testify did not constitute extraneous prejudicial information within the meaning of the rule 606b exception holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a violation of the fcra based on extraneous information where it was alleged that the document included broad language regarding disclosure of the information the accuracy of the information the consequences of providing a false statement and the effect of a photocopy holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant holding alleged disclosure of personal medical information to other employees sufficiently met elements of private facts tort