New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Daubert at Class Certification

Download PDF

From Rhodes v E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46159 (S.D. W.Va. June 11, 2008):

• “This court finds the Second Circuit's review of the recent development of the law and its reasoning to be helpful in determining this matter. [In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Lit., 192 F.R.D. 68 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ("Visa Check I"), aff'd, 280 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir. 2001) ("Visa Check II").] Like the district court in Visa Check I, I agree that "there is a role for a Daubert inquiry at the class certification stage." Visa Check I, 192 F.R.D. at 76. Daubert and Kumho Tire teach us that testing the reliability of expert opinions before consideration of those opinions is an important function for the court. When expert evidence is offered at trial, the trial court must serve as a gatekeeper to "ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable." Kumho Tire Co., v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589). Here, the court must satisfy itself that the facts, data, principles, and methods undergirding the expert opinions offered in support of class certification are similarly reliable prior to relying on those opinions during class certification. Failure to make this inquiry prior to certification would result in this court's failure to conduct the "rigorous analysis" required by the Supreme Court.”

• [Footnote 10:] Use of the Daubert analysis during class certification is inconsistent. Some federal district courts apply either a full Daubert analysis or a limited Daubert analysis, while other courts have rejected the applicability of Daubert at the class certification stage. See generally Steven Glickstein, Melissa C. Morrow, & Julie K. du Pont, Does Daubert Apply to Class Certification Hearings? , 695 PLI /Lit 423 (2003) (collecting cases that have applied varying Daubert standards during class certification); Joseph T. McLaughlin, Heather L. Dietrick, & Todd M. Beaton, Jr., Expert Testimony and Class Certification: The Outcome Determinative Role of Daubert, SN058 ALI-ABA 507 (2008) (same).”

• “Certification without adequate review of the parties' experts may substantially impair or foreclose the rights of absent class members if later review results in exclusion of the parties' experts. Given the high percentage of class actions which settle as a result of class certification, 11 failure to conduct a Daubert analysis might invite plaintiffs to seek class status for settlement purposes, and essentially amounts to a "delegation of judicial power to the plaintiffs, who can obtain class certification just by hiring a competent expert." West v. Prudential Sec., 282 F.3d 935, 938 (7th Cir. 2002).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice