usually does not owe a fiduciary duty to his client. Franklin Supply Co. v. Tolman, 454 F.2d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.1971); Arnold, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, at 849. We simply do not have enough information to decide whether the appellee owed a fiduciary duty to the appellant. However, we still conclude that the appellant’s negligence action was “inherently undiscovera-ble.” The appellant’s petition alleged that each of the appellee’s acts and omissions was negligent. Presumably, then, the appellant’s negligence action incorporates the allegation of nondisclosure. Many eases have found a cause of action to be inherently undiscovera-ble when it is based upon (1) the provision of complex services, or (2) secret actions by the defendant. E.g., Kelley v. Rinkle, 582 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tex.1976) (<HOLDING>); Thomson v. Espey Huston & Assocs., Inc., 899
holding propane gas to be an inherently dangerous product holding in the context of a fcra violation that a jury could find that a consumers credit score was negatively influenced by the failure to list a debt as disputed because evidence was presented that when a credit reporting agency received notice of a dispute it records the dispute in the credit report and does not include the derogatory information in assessing the credit score holding that a credit report on a prospective lessee of commercial real estate was not subject to the act holding the preparation of a libelous credit report to be inherently undiscoverable recognizing statutory credit