United States: Certification And Its Discontents: Rule 23 And The Role Of Daubert

Keywords: certification motion, Rule 23, class actions, Daubert, class certification,

The certification motion is the make-or-break event of a Rule 23 class action lawsuit. For defendants in particular, a successful motion for class certification can transform a garden-variety lawsuit into a bet-the-company case, dramatically expanding the risks and expenses of continued litigation and creating considerable pressure to settle. As the Seventh Circuit has observed, a class certification ruling "usually is the district judge's last word on the subject" and ordinarily "there is no later test of the decision's factual premises." Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001). Although the district court has authority to alter or amend a class certification order at any time before final judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), that possibility often is insufficient to counterbalance the actual costs and potentially ruinous effects of defending a certified class action.

As a result, both parties increasingly bring to bear all the ammunition possible to the class certification hearing, including expert testimony. Over time, a consensus has emerged among the federal circuit courts of appeals that a district court not only may, but must undertake a rigorous factual analysis where necessary to determine whether the class certification elements have been satisfied, including resolution of conflicting expert proof. Where experts appear, however, Daubert issues inevitably surface. What role the Daubert standard for admission of expert opinion should play in class certification remains very much an open question. The Seventh Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit have held that where reliability challenges are raised, the court must conduct a full Daubert analysis of expert testimony presented for or against class treatment. The Ninth Circuit, however, has diverged from this trend, and a decision expected from the United States Supreme Court this term could decide the issue once and for all.

Rule 23

In pertinent part, Rule 23(a) provides:

(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

  1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
  2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class,
  3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
  4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In practice, these are referred to as the "numerosity," "commonality," "typicality," and "adequacy" requirements. Most federal class actions also must meet two additional requirements set out in Rule 23(b): the court must "find[] that the questions of fact or law common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only class members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy" – the "predominance" and "superiority" requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)

Eisen and Its Aftermath

Unfortunately, the first toe the Supreme Court dipped into the waters of Rule 23 created significant and lasting confusion about the trial court's role in class certification. In 1974, the Court decided Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974). At stake was a then-recent amendment to Rule 23 requiring individual notice to class members (currently codified at Rule 23(c)(2)(B)). After holding a preliminary evidentiary hearing and finding that the plaintiff showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the trial court shifted 90% of notice costs to the defendants.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Rule 23 placed the procedural and financial burdens of providing notice to absent class members squarely and exclusively on the plaintiff. The Court criticized the district court's assumption that Rule 23 authorized an examination of the plaintiff's likelihood of success, announcing that "[w]e find nothing in either the language or history of Rule 23 that gives a court any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action." Id. at 177. Although the Court hardly could have foreseen it, the federal courts proceeded to interpret this single sentence to mean that no analysis of issues going to the merits of the case was permitted at the class certification stage, even if those issues bore directly on whether the Rule 23 requirements had been satisfied. The result was that plaintiffs often had to present little more than facially adequate allegations that class treatment was warranted in order to obtain certification.

The Supreme Court swiftly moved to clarify its holding. Four years after Eisen, the Court ruled in Coopers & Librand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978), that a denial of class certification was not immediately appealable because, among other reasons, "[e]valuation of many of the questions entering into determination of class action questions is intimately involved with the merits of the claims." Id. at 469 n. 12 (quoting 15 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3911 (1976)). The Court identified "[t]he typicality of the representative's claims or defenses, the adequacy of the representative, and the presence of common questions of law or fact" as "obvious examples." Id.A few years later, in General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982), the Court confronted the issue head-on, holding that "a rigorous analysis" is required to determine whether the elements of Rule 23 have been satisfied. Id. at 161. The Court instructed that it may be necessary to "probe behind the pleadings" at the class certification stage because "actual, not presumed, conformance" with Rule 23 is required. Id. at 160.

Despite the seemingly clear directives of Coopers & Lybrand and General Telephone, the federal courts labored for years in confusion over the scope of a court's evidentiary inquiry on a class certification motion. A wide spectrum of opinions emerged, with some courts interpreting Eisen as effectively imposing a requirement that the judge take the substantive allegations in the complaint as true (see, e.g., Edwards v. City of Long Beach, 467 F. Supp. 2d 986, 991 (C.D. Cal. 2006)), other courts concluding that class certification was appropriate as long as the plaintiff made "some showing" beyond the face of the complaint (see, e.g., In re Natural Gas Commodities Litig., 231 F.R.D. 171, 181 (S.D.N.y. 2005)), and still other courts holding that the Supreme Court's holdings in Coopers & Lybrand and General Telephone meant that the court must make whatever factual determinations were necessary to find whether the Rule 23 requirements had been met Wright v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. 201 F.R.D. 526, 534 (N.D. Ala. 2001).

The Use of Experts in Class Certification Proceedings

Since General Telephone instructed courts to "probe behind the pleadings" to ensure conformance with Rule 23, parties have made increasing use of experts at the class certification stage to demonstrate that class claims are susceptible to resolution by common proof (according to plaintiffs) or, to the contrary, that individualized factors trump any commonalities among class members (according to defendants). Not surprisingly, the federal courts' struggle as to the general boundaries of class certification review extended to consideration of expert opinions, and in particular to the treatment of conflicting expert testimony.

Initially, the prevailing view was that that "a district court may not weigh conflicting expert evidence or engage in 'statistical dueling' of experts." In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir. 2001). But over the past decade, this stance has been repudiated in favor of a consensus that any factual disputes concerning the Rule 23 factors, including disputes created by dueling certification experts, must be resolved before a class can be certified.

The Seventh Circuit was in the vanguard of this trend, issuing an influential pair of opinions in 2001 and 2002. Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., vacated an order certifying a nationwide class, ruling that the district court erroneously had concluded that it had no authority to investigate the merits of the class certification allegations. The Seventh Circuit admonished that "[t]he proposition that a district judge must accept all of the complaint's allegations when deciding whether to certify a class cannot be found in Rule 23 and has nothing to recommend it" and that "[p]laintiffs cannot tie the judge's hands by making allegations relevant to both the merits and class certification." Id., 249 F. 3d at 675, 677. The following year, in West v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 282 F.3d 935, 938 (7th Cir. 2002), the Seventh Circuit applied this holding to the question of expert testimony, reversing the district court's conclusion that a clash of experts was "enough by itself to support class certification." In no uncertain terms, West rejected this approach as "amount[ing] to a delegation of judicial power to the plaintiffs" and made clear that "[a] district judge may not duck hard questions by observing that each side has some support, or that considerations relevant to class certification also may affect the decision on the merits." Id. at 938.

The jurisprudential turning point was the Second Circuit's decision in In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation ("In re IPO"), 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006), which expressly repudiated an influential line of prior decisions that had established a lenient standard for class certification and held instead that a district court must resolve conflicting evidence, including conflicting expert testimony, in order to certify a class action. Id. at 41-42. The Second Circuit placed particular significance on the 2003 amendments to Rule 23, which appeared to endorse this standard by removing a provision for conditional class certification and changing the time frame for a certification decision from "as soon as practicable" to "an early practicable time" to allow "discovery into the 'merits' * * * relevant to making the certification decision on an informed basis." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A) & 23(c)(1)(C) Adv. Comm. Notes; see also In re IPO, 471 F.3d at 39. Following In re IPO, other federal circuits have fallen in line.

Most recently, the Ninth Circuit adopted In re IPO's reasoning in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), observing that courts had "myopically invoked Eisen to avoid considering facts properly relevant to the Rule 23 determination because the facts happen to be relevant to the later merits inquiry as well."

Daubert's Role in Class Certification: American Honda and Dukes

Less well-established is how a district court should handle a Daubert challenge to expert opinion offered at the class certification stage. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Supreme Court set a new standard for admission of expert testimony in federal proceedings, overruling the then-prevailing "general acceptance" admissibility standard advanced by Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Daubert concluded that a district court faced with a proffer of expert testimony must exercise a gatekeeping role, scrutinizing the testimony carefully, and, if the opinions are not grounded on a reliable foundation or do not help the factfinder to understand the actual issues in the case, excluding the testimony. Id. at 592-93. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Court made clear that the Daubert analysis is not limited to scientific testimony, but must be undertaken when any kind of "technical" or "specialized" expert testimony is offered. Id. at 147.

The federal circuits are only beginning to grapple with whether the Daubert standard applies to expert opinions submitted in connection with class certification. Initial post-Daubert jurisprudence concluded that "a motion to strike expert evidence pursuant to [Daubert] involves a inquiry distinct from that for evaluating expert evidence in support of a motion for class certification," and the district court's only task was to ensure that "the basis of the expert opinion [wa]s not so flawed that it would be inadmissible as a matter of law." In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d at 132 n.4, 135. Recently, however, two of the federal circuit courts have undertaken to reexamine that view.

In American Honda Motor Co. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), the Seventh Circuit ruled that "when an expert's report or testimony is critical to class certification," courts must "perform a full Daubert analysis before certifying [a] class." Id. at 815-16. American Honda states in no uncertain terms that a district court is obligated to "resolve any challenge to the reliability of information provided by an expert if that information is relevant to establishing any of the Rule 23 requirements for class certification." Id. at 816. Recently, the Eleventh Circuit adopted the standard set forth in American Honda, vacating a certification order and instructing the district court to conduct a Daubert review of the admissibility of conflicting expert testimony. Sher v. Raytheon Co., No. 09- 15798, 2011 WL 814379, at *3 (11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2011).

Just three weeks after American Honda, however, the Ninth Circuit came to a contrary conclusion in Dukes, creating a circuit split. In Dukes, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the certification of a nationwide class of as many as 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees alleging gender discrimination based on pay.

The plaintiffs sought to prove the Rule 23 "commonality" requirement through the opinions of a sociologist who opined that Wal-Mart's decision-makers are "likely influenced by" gender stereotyping, although he "conceded that he could not calculate whether 0.5 percent or 95 percent of the employment decisions at Wal-Mart might be determined by stereotyped thinking." Dukes v. Wal-Mart Corp., 222 F.R.D. 189, 192 (N.D. Cal. 2004).Wal-Mart moved to strike the expert's opinions as unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert, but the district court declined to conduct a Daubert hearing. In a sharply divided (6 to 5) opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed en banc.As discussed, the Ninth Circuit expressly repudiated any use of Eisen to limit a district court's inquiry at the class certification stage. But Dukes also concluded that the district court had not erred in refusing to test the reliability of plaintiffs' expert's methodology, finding that because "Daubert does not require a court to admit or exclude evidence based on its persuasiveness," a Daubert hearing "would not have addressedWal-Mart's objections." Id. at 602. In a footnote, the majority further remarked that it was "not convinced" that "Daubert has exactly the same application at the class certification stage as it does to expert testimony at trial." Id. at 602 n.22. The dissent took the majority to task for failing to "explain why the district court can rely on an expert's testimony that is not reliable, at the class certification stage or any other," and argued that the purposes of the Daubert inquiry – "to ensure that proffered expert testimony is relevant and reliable" – were "equally applicable in the class certification context." Id. at 639.

On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted Wal-Mart's petition for certiorari, directing the parties to address whether the certification order "was consistent with Rule 23(a)." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 795 (2010). Argument was conducted on March 29, 2011, with a ruling expected by June.

Approximately twenty-nine amicus curiae briefs have been filed, including briefs that specifically urge the Court to find that the "rigorous analysis" required by General Telephone demands nothing less than a full Daubert analysis when expert testimony is offered in support of or against class certification. Those amici have argued that the Ninth Circuit's opinion prejudices defendants who expend the resources necessary to reach the merits phase only to have the court de-certify the class upon Daubert review, and can have significant adverse consequences for absent class members who may lose their rights if a class is certified on the basis of ultimately excluded expert testimony. See, e.g., Briefs of Amici Curiae Washington Legal Foundation, Atlantic Legal Foundation, and New England Legal Foundation.

Conclusion

In American Honda, the Seventh Circuit presented a simple and pragmatic solution to the problem of how expert proof presented in connection with certification proceedings should be reviewed: the Daubert standard. Despite the Dukes majority's suggestion to the contrary, there is no evident reason why expert testimony presented at the class certification stage should be reviewed with lesser scrutiny than the same testimony would be at trial. Indeed, a more lenient standard presents the serious risk that classes will be certified on the basis of opinions that prove to be inadmissible at trial, wasting time, money, and judicial resources. Dukes presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to establish a clear and comprehensive rule; hopefully, the Court will take advantage of that opportunity to cement the position of American Honda.

Originally published by The Circuit Rider.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions