Rigorous Analysis of the Class Certification Expert: The Roles of Daubert and the Defendant's Proof

By Scribner, Heather P. | The Review of Litigation, Fall 2008 | Go to article overview

Rigorous Analysis of the Class Certification Expert: The Roles of Daubert and the Defendant's Proof


Scribner, Heather P., The Review of Litigation


I. INTRODUCTION

A lawsuit may not be certified as a class action unless the named plaintiff shows that the central facts of the case will be proved on a class-wide basis.1 The named plaintiff often attempts to meet this burden through an expert witness, who opines that the case's material facts, which would seem to require individualized inquiries from each class member, can instead be proved through a common formula on behalf of the entire class. The defendant invariably responds with his own expert, who opines that the plaintiffs expert has oversimplified the matter and that the facts at issue cannot be proved without individualized inquiries from the class members. Two important questions arise regarding the district court's use of expert opinion testimony at the class certification stage. First, how closely should the district court scrutinize an expert's opinion? In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must look beneath the surface of expert opinions, closely examine the expert's methodologies, and exclude testimony that is irrelevant or unreliable.2 But the Supreme Court has never addressed whether the district court must subject expert testimony to Daubert's strictures at the certification stage.

Second, assuming both parties' experts pass muster under Daubert, should the district court resolve fact disputes between the opposing experts where class certification would be appropriate under one set of facts but not another? At first blush, the Supreme Court's statements regarding how deeply the district court should delve into the factual underpinnings of the parties' claims and defenses seem to conflict. In an early case, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, the Court stated that the district court may not conduct a "preliminary inquiry into the merits" in deciding whether to certify the class.3 A few years later, the Court reversed course, requiring district courts to undertake a "rigorous analysis" of the facts offered at the class certification stage, "probfing] behind the pleadings" to discern whether the case could be effectively adjudicated as a class.4 These rather vague standards do not specifically address how the district court should assess competing expert testimony at the class certification stage, and the Court has never focused on me issue.

In the absence of clear guidance, the federal circuit courts have adopted three different approaches to class certification where the parties present expert evidence. The first approach leans heavily on Eisen's objection to "merits" inquiries.5 Courts that follow this approach refuse to subject a plaintiffs expert to a full Daubert inquiry at the class certification stage, instead conducting only a "limited" review to ensure that the expert's opinions are not "inadmissible as a matter of law."6 These courts certify the proposed class so long as the plaintiffs evidence survives this low level of scrutiny, and will not assess counterproof offered by the defendant in opposition to class certification. The second approach requires a Daubert analysis when the plaintiff offers expert testimony in support of class certification, but refuses to assess competing evidence offered by the defendant.7 This approach leaves class certification virtually automatic so long as the plaintiffs expert passes Daubert' s requirements. Finally, the third approach recognizes that Daubert and Rule 23 have wholly different requirements and serve wholly different purposes.8 The Daubert analysis merely determines whether expert testimony is sufficiently relevant and reliable to be admitted into evidence. Rule 23's requirements, on the other hand, ensure that class treatment is fair to the defendant and the absent class members alike. This approach permits an examination of the full range of evidence presented in support of and opposition to class certification. The district court makes whatever factual and legal inquiries are necessary to determine whether common issues will predominate and whether class treatment is superior to other available methods for resolving the dispute. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Rigorous Analysis of the Class Certification Expert: The Roles of Daubert and the Defendant's Proof
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.