United States: The Bitter And Sweet Of The Wal-Mart/Comcast/Halliburton Triumvirate: More Grounds For Defeating Class Certification, But More Exposure To Discovery

Last Updated: January 30 2015
Article by Chad A. Readler

Corporate litigants are still celebrating recent United States Supreme Court victories by defendants in high-profile class-action cases. As they should. After all, the trio of cases, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, and Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., mark a fundamental change in class litigation. Following these decisions, lower courts must now engage in a "rigorous analysis" of the prerequisites for class certification—an analysis that frequently "will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). Going forward, corporate defendants opposing class certification have a number of new arrows in their litigation quiver to defeat class certification.

Yet with these victories comes the threat of additional costs by way of discovery. With merits considerations now fair game at the certification stage, so too may be class discovery. Historically, class defendants have successfully bifurcated merits discovery from class discovery, cabining their discovery exposure at the class stage. Going forward, however, courts may well give plaintiffs wider berth at the class discovery stage, given the significance that merits issues now play in the certification analysis.

This Commentary discusses how federal district courts have approached discovery in the wake of Wal-Mart, Comcast, and Halliburton. To date, most courts confronting class discovery issues have expanded the scope of plaintiffs' precertification discovery to include merits-based inquiries. But not all courts have followed suit, with some still limiting the scope of discovery in meaningful ways, and others shifting the financial burden of discovery. And still other courts have seized upon more active case management plans to streamline class discovery dramatically. Class-action defendants should pay heed to this developing class-action discovery landscape.

Background

In 2011, the Supreme Court raised the bar for plaintiffs seeking class certification by requiring lower courts to conduct a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether the prerequisites for certification are met. Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551 (reversing the grant of class certification due to a lack of commonality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)). This "rigorous analysis," the Court explained, often will "entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim." Id. In the words of the Court, a merits-entwined inquiry for purposes of class certification "cannot be helped." Id. at 2551-52 (collecting cases).

Two years later, the Supreme Court doubled-down on its "rigorous analysis" requirement for class certification, applying the teachings of Wal-Mart to prospective Rule 23(b)(3) classes as well. See Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013) (reversing the grant of class certification due to a lack of predominance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)). In Comcast, the Court criticized the lower court's "refus[al] to entertain arguments against respondents' damages model that bore on the propriety of class certification, simply because those arguments would also be pertinent to the merits determination." Id. at 1432-33. Rather, the Court's precedents "flatly" require a determination that Rule 23 is satisfied, "even when that requires inquiry into the merits of the claim." Id. at 1433.

The third installment in the Supreme Court's class-action trilogy came in 2014 in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014). There, the Supreme Court opened the door even further to merits-based defenses at the class-certification stage—this time in the context of securities class actions. In Halliburton, the Court held that securities defendants can rebut the presumption of reliance under a fraud-on-the-market theory not only during the merits phase but also during class certification. Id. at 2414-15. Securities defendants, moreover, can rebut this presumption through the use of direct and indirect evidence alike. Id. at 2417.

The Wal-Mart/Comcast/Halliburton triumvirate marked big wins for class-action defendants, enabling them to raise merits-based defenses that might otherwise never be presented to a court. That is so because many class cases are settled following certification, given the high stakes of merit-stage proceedings. Now, those merits issues are ripe for consideration at the class stage, to the extent they inform the certification analysis.

But with these new rights come potential new discovery responsibilities. The class-action discovery landscape is changing in the aftermath of Wal-Mart and its progeny. Now more than ever, defendants must balance their litigation strategy to maintain a strong likelihood of defeating class certification while controlling discovery costs.

The "Old Rules" of Precertification Discovery

Before Wal-Mart/Comcast/Halliburton, district courts faced a "threshold question" of whether any precertification discovery was needed. See Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.14 (4th ed. 2004). For claims that rest on readily available and undisputed facts or that raise only issues of law, precertification discovery generally was not warranted. Id.

Likewise, before Wal-Mart/Comcast/Halliburton, even when some discovery was necessary to determine whether the prerequisites for certification were met, courts routinely bifurcated discovery between certification issues and those relating to the merits of the allegations. See, e.g., Cox v. Zurn Pex, Inc. (In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig.), 644 F.3d 604, 612-13 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that it is common in putative class actions for defendants to seek "bifurcated discovery" between class certification and merits issues); Larson v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 210 F.R.D. 663, 665 (D. Minn. 2002) ("Here, we conclude that the mandate of Rule 1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is best implemented by bifurcated discovery—that is, by completing discovery as to the claims of the four named-Plaintiffs, prior to extensive discovery on the merits of the 'class claims.'"). Bifurcated discovery was utilized to "increase efficiency" in complex cases and reduce attendant discovery costs for defendants. See Zurn Pex, 644 F.3d at 613.

The "New Rules" of Precertification Discovery

In light of recent Supreme Court decisions, trial courts face new questions over the appropriate scope of precertification discovery. Put simply, if defendants can raise merits-based defenses to defeat class certification, as the Supreme Court has authorized, can plaintiffs pursue discovery on the merits before a certification decision?

So far, few opinions address this question head-on. As a general rule, district courts retain broad discretion to manage discovery disputes, and this discretion extends to decisions over bifurcating discovery in class actions. In re Groupon Secs. Litig., No. 12 C 2450, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26212, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2014); see also Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., No. C 11-01078 DMR, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58024, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012). Courts are utilizing this discretion in different ways.

Some Courts Decline to Bifurcate Discovery Post-Wal-Mart/Comcast/Halliburton . In the wake of Wal-Mart/Comcast/Halliburton, a growing number of district courts are now "reluctant to bifurcate class-related discovery from discovery on the merits." See Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 285 F.R.D. 294, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (collecting cases); see also Groupon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26212, at *12 (denying defendant's motion for bifurcated discovery and noting that, "in terms of bifurcation, the lesson of [Comcast] is more detrimental to the Defendants' argument than helpful").

For example, in Chen-Oster, the Southern District of New York cited Wal-Mart as the basis for refusing to bifurcate discovery before certification. 285 F.R.D.at 298-301. The court permitted plaintiffs to pursue discovery directed not only "toward general [employment] policies" of Goldman Sachs, which the defendant conceded related to the prerequisites for certification, but also to pursue discovery related to "individualized personnel data" that arguably went to the merits of the plaintiffs' case. Id. at 300-01. As the court explained, "[Wal-Mart] does not ... militate in favor of bifurcating discovery prior to certification. On the contrary, if anything, [Wal-Mart] illustrates the need to develop the record fully before a class motion is considered." Id. at 298.

Similarly, in Groupon, the Northern District of Illinois relied on Wal-Mart and Comcast in denying the defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26212, at *12, *15. There, the court looked to three factors to determine whether bifurcated discovery is appropriate: (i) expedience, (ii) economy, and (iii) severability, "meaning whether class certification and merits issues are closely enmeshed." Id. at *6. In discussing the economy of bifurcated discovery, the court noted that oftentimes, "bifurcation can actually increase the costs of litigation because of disputes over what constitutes merits and what constitutes class discovery." Id. at *14. Likewise, because the class-certification analysis post-Wal-Mart will entail some overlap with the merits of the underlying claims, bifurcation will not create the same efficiencies as before. Id. at *14-16 (concluding that defendants had not established a "good reason" to bifurcate discovery).

Several district courts have followed suit in denying defendants' motions for bifurcated discovery, in the wake of recent Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., Johnson v. Flakeboard Am. Ltd., No. 4:11-2607-TLW-KDW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83702, at *16-17 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2012) ("The Supreme Court's decision in [Wal-Mart] supports Plaintiffs' contention that discovery into the merits of the [employment discrimination] claim is necessary before entering findings of fact on whether Rule 23 standards have been met."); In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va. Mortg. Lending Practices Litig., MDL No. 1674, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107366, at *24 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2011) (denying bifurcation in light of Wal-Mart); cf. Feske v. MHC Thousand Trails Ltd. P'ship, No. 11-CV-4124-PSG, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47236, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012) (holding that disclosure of members of putative class was "even more appropriate in the wake of [Wal-Mart]").

This growing trend toward broader precertification discovery does not mean, however, that plaintiffs automatically are entitled to merits-based discovery at the certification stage. To obtain such discovery, plaintiffs still must articulate how the materials they seek implicate the class-certification analysis under Rule 23. See Chen-Oster, 285 F.R.D. at 300 (concluding that because "[e]mployment policies do not exist in a vacuum[,]" discovery into putative class members' employment experiences was necessary "to support a finding of commonality"); Johnson v. Flakeboard Am. Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83702, at *17 ("[P]laintiffs are generally entitled to pre-certification discovery to establish the record the court needs to determine whether the requirements for a class action suit have been met" (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)). Absent any overlap between the merits and the prerequisites for class certification, plaintiffs may find themselves hard-pressed to obtain such broad discovery.

Other Courts Continue to Limit the Scope and Costs of Precertification Discovery Post-Wal-Mart/Comcast/Halliburton . Other courts, however, continue to bifurcate discovery to the extent practicable following recent Supreme Court precedent. See Lake v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 893, 933 (N.D. Ill. 2013) ("While the Court recognizes that the class certification and merits issues may overlap in some respects, this alone is not enough to overcome the efficiency benefits to be gained from bifurcated discovery."); see also Christian v. Generation Mortg. Co., No. 12 C 5336, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69855, at *11-13 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2013) (citing the efficiency benefits of bifurcated discovery, granting the defendant's motion to bifurcate, and rejecting the plaintiffs' claim that foreclosing merits discovery "would, in effect, unfairly end the entire case").

Still Other Courts Have Adopted Less Traditional Approaches to Precertification Discovery, Including Cost-Sharing or More Active Case Management Plans. Finally, a few courts have adopted less traditional approaches to managing the scope and expense of precertification discovery. In one case, a district court even ordered the plaintiffs to bear the costs of far-reaching discovery regarding class-certification issues. Boeynaems v. LA Fitness Int'l, LLC, 285 F.R.D. 331, 334-41 (E.D. Pa. 2012). In Boeynaems, the court noted that, because class determinations require a "searching inquiry" and "very detailed analysis," the costs of precertification discovery are often unfairly "asymmetrical" to defendants. Id. Accordingly, where class certification is pending and the plaintiffs have asked for extensive discovery, "compliance with which will be very expensive," the plaintiffs should pay for the discovery they seek absent compelling circumstances to the contrary. Id. at 341 ("If the plaintiffs have confidence in their contention that the Court should certify the class, then the plaintiffs should have no objection to making an investment."). Boeynaems appears to be the first instance in which a court has addressed shifting the costs of discovery in a preclass-determination setting. Whether other courts will follow its logic remains to be seen. Boeynaems, however, is a helpful tool for defendants caught in the post-Wal-Mart/Comcast/Halliburton discovery vortex.

Another alternative to permitting extensive precertification discovery is to impose a more active case management plan upon the parties—for example, a case management plan that seeks to resolve certain "death knell" issues from the plaintiffs' complaint before turning to certification. See generally Simms v. Bayer Healthcare LLC (In re Bayer Healthcare), 752 F.3d 1065 (6th Cir. 2014). In Bayer Healthcare, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the manufacturers of various flea-and-tick products for dogs and cats, alleging that the manufacturers made false representations regarding their products. Id. at 1067-68. During the case management conference, the district court listened to the parties' arguments before ultimately categorizing the matter as essentially "a one-issue case." Id. at 1069. "The district court then crafted an evidentiary plan for handling the case" and "expressed concerns about spending millions of dollars in discovery." Id. Accordingly, the court limited discovery to whether the defendants could "produce studies that substantiated their advertising claims" and, if so, whether the plaintiffs could refute those studies. Id. at 1069-70.

After the parties submitted their competing evidence, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Id. at 1071. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that "the case management plan provided for limited discovery and briefing" and that the defendants' studies "substantiated their advertising claims." Id. Thus, the defendants prevailed without ever engaging in extensive discovery regarding the prerequisites for class certification.

Although Bayer Healthcare presented an unusual case management plan, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment and rejected the plaintiffs' later claims that they were denied sufficient discovery. Id. at 1074, 1078. Bayer Healthcare thus provides yet another, albeit irregular, path that defendants can pursue in controlling the costs of precertification discovery.1

Conclusion

Wal-Mart, Comcast, and Halliburton offer both the bitter and the sweet to class-action defendants. These decisions arm defendants with powerful tools for defeating class certification. At the same time, the decisions increase the likelihood of broader merits discovery and increased costs at the certification stage. Given the abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review, clearer rules governing the scope of this discovery will take time to evolve. In the meantime, class-action defendants must know their strategic options available to limit discovery while building the record to defeat class certification.

Footnote

1 Jones Day served as counsel for defendant Merial Inc. in the trial and appellate proceedings in Bayer Healthcare.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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