PUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETEDAnUcb$tttffnurIofppitlFORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIACIRCUITArguedSeptember28,201$DecidedAugust16,2019No.18-7010INRE:RAILFREIGHTFUELSURCHARGEANTITRUSTLITIGATION-MDLNo.1$69,DAKOTAGRANITECOMPANY,ONBEHALFOFITSELFANDALLOTHERSSIMILARLYSITUATED,ETAL.,APPELLANTSV.BNSFRAILWAYCOMPANY,ETAL.,APPELLEESAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbia(No.1:07-mc-00489)KathleenMSullivanarguedthecauseforappellants.WithheronthebriefswereStephenR.Neuwirth,SamiHRashid,MichaelD.Hausfeld,andMichael?.Lehmann.CarterG.Phillipsarguedthecauseforappellees.WithhimonthebriefwereJosephR.Guerra,KathleenMoriartyMueller,Saul?.Morgenstern,ThomasA.Isaacson,JohnliNannes,TaraL.Reinhart,JScottBallenger,VeronicaS.Lewis,SamuelMSipe,Jr.,LindaS.Stein,AndrewS.Tulumello,LucasC.Townsend,andKentA.Gardiner.PUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED2AntonMetlitskyandWarrenD.PostmanwereonthebriefforamicuscuriaeChamberofCommerceoftheUnitedStatesofAmericainsupportofdefendants-appellees.Before:GARLAND,ChiefJudge,andROGERSandKATSAS,CircuitJudges.OpinionfortheCourtfiledbyCircuitJudgeKATSAS.KATSAS,CircuitJudge:’Thiscaseinvolvesaputativeclassofover16,000shippersallegedlyharmedbyapricefixingconspiracyamongthenation’slargestfreightrailroads.Thedistrictcourtdeniedclasscertificationbecausetheplaintiffs’regressionanalysis—theirevidenceforprovingcausation,injury,anddamagesonaclass-widebasis—measurednegativedamagesforover2,000membersoftheproposedclass.Basedonthatconsideration,weaffirm.IThisappealarisesoutofeighteenantitrustactionsconsolidatedbytheMultidistrictLitigationPanel.ThedefendantsarethefourlargestfreightrailroadsintheUnitedStates:BNSFRailwayCompany;CSXTransportation,Inc.;NorfolkSouthernRailwayCompany;andUnionPacificRailroadCompany.Theplaintiffs,whoaretheircustomers,allegethattherailroadsconspiredtofixrate-basedfuelsurcharges.Railroadsimposefuelsurcharges—additionalchargesabovethebaseshippingprice—whenthepriceoffuelrisesaboveacertaintriggerprice.Rate-basedsurchargesarecalculatedasapercentageofthebaseshippingprice.NOTE:PortionsofthisopinioncontainSealedInformation,whichhasbeenredacted.PUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETEDFollowingconsolidation,theactionwasdividedintoonecaseinvolvingdirectpurchasersandanotherinvolvingindirectpurchasers.Allplaintiffsallegedthattherailroadsviolatedsection1oftheShermanAct,15U.S.C.§1,byconspiringtofixprices.Thedirectpurchaserssoughttrebledamagesundersection4oftheclaytonAct,15U.S.C.§15,andthedistrictcourtheldthattheystatedaclaim,InreRailFreightSurchargeAntitrustLitig.,587F.Supp.2d27(D.D.c.2008).Theindirectpurchaserssoughtinjunctivereliefundersection16oftheClaytonAct,15U.S.C.§26,andraisedvariousstate-lawclaims.Thedistrictcourtheldthatthestateclaimswerepreemptedbyfederallaw,butitdeclinedtodismissthefederalclaims.InreRailFreightSurchargeAntitrustLitig.,593F.Supp.2d29(D.D.C.2008),afTd,FayusEnters.v.BNSFRy.Co.,602F.3d444(D.C.Cir.2010).Theeightnamedplaintiffsinthedirect-purchasercase—CarterDistributingCompany;DakotaGraniteCompany;DonnellyCommodities,Inc.;DustPro,Inc.;NyrstarTaylorChemicals,Inc.;OlinCorporation;StratesShows,Inc.;andUSMagnesiumLLC—rnovedtocertifyaclassunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure23(b)(3).Theproposedclassconsistedofallshipperswhopaidrate-basedfuelsurchargesforunregulatedservicespurchasedfromthedefendantsbetweenJuly1,2003andDecember31,2008.Toshowthatcausation,injury,anddamagescouldbeprovedonaclass-widebasis,theplaintiffsinvokedtworegressionmodelsconstructedbytheireconomist,Dr.GordonRausser.The“commonfactormodel”identifiedsevenvariablessaidtodeterminethepriceofthedefendants’services,includingfuelsurcharges.The“damagesmodel,”controllingforthosevariables,soughttoisolatepriceincreasesattributabletotheallegedconspiracy.Therailroadscriticizedthesemodelsonvariousgrounds,includingthattheymeasureddamagesforshipmentsmadeunderlegacycontractsfixedbeforeanyconspiracyallegedlybegan.PUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED4Thedistrictcourtinitiallycertifiedtheclass.Itnotedthatifindividualizedproofwerenecessarytoestablishcausationandinjury,thentheplaintiffscouldnotsatisfytheRule23(b)(3)requirementthatcommonquestionspredominate.SeeInreRailFreightFuelSurchargeAntitrustLitig.,287F.R.D.1,43(D.D.C.2012).ButthecourtfoundDr.Rausser’sregressionanalysistobe“plausible”and“workable,”soitconcludedthatcausation,injury,anddamageswere“susceptibletoproofattrialthroughevidencecommontotheclass.”Id.at67.Thecourtrejectedmanydifferentcriticismsoftheregressionmodels,butitdidnotspecificallyaddressthequestionoffalsepositivesforlegacycontracts.Oninterlocutoryreview,wevacatedthecertificationorderandremandedforreconsiderationinlightofComcastCorp.V.Behrend,569U.S.27(2013).InreRailFreightSurchargeAntitrustLitig.—MDLNo.1869,725F.3d244(D.C.Cir.2013)(RailFreight1).Weexplainedthat,foranantitrustclassaction,commonquestions“cannotpredominatewherethereexistsnoreliablemeansofprovingclasswideinjuryinfact.”Id.at253.Weexpressedconcernwiththedistrictcourt’sfailuretoaddress“thedamagesmodel’spropensitytowardfalsepositives,”whichleftuswithnowayofknowingwhether“theoverchargesthedamagesmodelcalculatesforclassmembers[are]anymoreaccuratethantheobviouslyfalseestimatesitproducesforlegacyshippers.”Id.at254.Finally,westressedthatRule23,asconstruedinComcast,requiresa“hardlookatthesoundnessofstatisticalmodelsthatpurporttoshowpredominance.”Id.at255.Onremand,afterpermittingsupplementaldiscoveryandexpertreports,thedistrictcourtdeniedclasscertification.InreRailFreightSurchargeAntitrustLitig.,292F.Supp.3d14(D.D.C.2017)(RailFreightIf).ThecourtconcludedthatDr.Rausser’sexpertopinionswerereliableenoughtobeadmissibleattrial.Id.at49—63.ButinassessingPUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED5predominance,thecourtidentifiedthreeshortcomingsinhisdamagesmodel:first,itmeasuredhighlyinflateddamagesforintermodaltraffic(i.e.,shipmentstravelingbyrailandanothermodeoftransportationsuchastrucksorairplanes),Id.at122—26;second,aswehadnotedintheearlierappeal,themodelerroneouslymeasureddamagesforshipmentsmadeunderlegacycontracts,Id.at126—31;andthird,themodelmeasurednegativedamages—andhencenoinjury—forover2,000membersoftheproposedclass,id.at132—41.Thecourtconcludedthatanyoneoftheseproblemswasenoughtodefeattheplaintiffs’argumentforpredominance.Id.at122.Theplaintiffsfiledapetitionforpermissiontoappealtheclass-certificationdecisionunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure23(f).AmotionspanelofthisCourtgrantedthepetitionwithoutprejudicetoreconsiderationatthemeritsstage.InreRailfreightfuelSurchargeAntitrustLitig.—MDLNo.1869,No.17-8005(D.C.Cir.Dec.20,2017).IIWebeginwiththequestionofourjurisdiction.Ordersdenyingclasscertificationareneitherfinaldecisionsunder28U.S.C.§1291,Coopers&Lybrandv.Livesay,437U.S.463(1978),norinjunctionsimmediatelyappealableunder28U.S.C.§1292(a)(l),Gardnerv.WestinghouseBroadCo.,437U.S.478(1978).However,28U.S.C.§1292(e)permitstheSupremeCourttopromulgaterulescreatingnewcategoriesofdecisionsappealablebeforefinaljudgment.Exercisingthatauthority,theCourthasprovidedthat“[a]courtofappealsmaypermitanappealfromanordergrantingordenyingclass-actioncertification,”ifa“petitionforpermissiontoappeal”istimelyfiled.Fed.R.Civ.P.23(f).Inthiscase,theplaintiffsfiledatimelypetitionforpermissiontoappeal,whichwasenoughunderRule23(f)toPUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED6secureourjurisdiction.Thatjurisdictionis“discretionary,”RailfreightI,725F.3dat250,andtherailroadscontestwhetherweshouldexerciseit.Buttheirargumentonthispointisperfunctory—lessthanonepageofbriefing,withnocasecitations—anditalmostentirelyduplicatestheirmeritsarguments.Accordingtotherailroads,weshouldconcludethatthedenialofclasscertificationwascorrect.Then,weshoulddismisstheappealasraisingneitheraquestionabledecisionnoranunsettledissue—considerationsthatbearonwhethertopermittheappealinthefirstplace,seeid.at250—54.Becausethatdispositionwouldmakelittlesenseatthisjuncture,wedeclinetorevisitthemotionspanel’sdecisionacceptingtheappeal.IIIFederalRuleofCivilProcedure23setsforthvariousrequirementsforthecertificationofclassactions.Rule23(a)providesfour“prerequisites”foranyclasscertification,includingthattheremustbe“questionsoflaworfactcommontotheclass.”Iftheseprerequisitesaremet,Rule23(b)(3)permitscertificationif,amongotherthings,“questionsoflaworfactcommontoclassmemberspredominateoveranyquestionsaffectingonlyindividualmembers.”Forpurposesoftheserules,a“common”questionisonethatis“capableofclasswideresolution—whichmeansthatdeterminationofitstruthorfalsitywillresolveanissuethatiscentraltothevalidityofeachoneoftheclaimsinonestroke.”Wal-MartStores,Inc.v.Dukes,564U.S.338,350(2011).Incontrast,an“individual”questionisoneforwhich“membersofaproposedclasswillneedtopresentevidencethatvariesfrommembertomember.”TysonFoods,Inc.v.Bouaphakeo,136S.Ct.1036,1045(2016)(quotationmarksomitted).Thepartyseekingclasscertification“mustaffirmativelydemonstrate”thatthecommonalityandpredominancePUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED7requirementsaresatisfied.Wal-Mart,564U.S.at350.Thisrequiresa“rigorousanalysis”thatoftenwill“overlapwiththemerits.”Id.at351(quotationmarksomitted).Threerecentcasesaddressthecontoursofthisanalysis.InWal-Mart,theSupremeCourtordereddecertificationofaTitleVIIclasswheretheplaintiffspresentedinsufficientproofthatthedefendanthadengagedinageneralpolicyofsexdiscrimination.Id.at352—55.InCorncast,theCourtordereddecertificationwheretheregressionanalysisusedtoshowcommoninjurydidnottracktheunderlyingtheoryofliability.569U.S.at36—38.TheCourtrejectedacontentionthat,attheclass-certificationstage,“anymethodofmeasurementisacceptablesolongasitcanbeappliedclasswide,nomatterhowarbitrarythemeasurementsmaybe.”Id.at36.ButinTysonfoods,theCourtheldthatconcernsaboutthevalidityofastatisticalsampleusedtoproveclass-wideaverages—whichtheCourtdescribedaspresentingacommonobjectiontotheclaimsofeachclassmember—shouldbeaddressed“asamatterofsummaryjudgment,notclasscertification.”1365.Ct.at1047(quotationmarksomitted).IVThedirect-purchaserplaintiffsraiseclaimsundersection4oftheClaytonAct,whichprovidestrebledamagestoanyperson“injuredinhisbusinessorpropertybyreasonofanythingforbiddenintheantitrustlaws.”15U.S.C.§15(a).Toestablishliabilityundersection4,eachplaintiffmustprovenotonlyanantitrustviolation,butalsoaninjurytoitsbusinessorpropertyandacausalrelationbetweenthetwo.Withoutcommonproofofinjuryandcausation,section4plaintiffscannotestablishpredominance.See,e.g.,Comcast,569U.S.at36—38;RailfreightI,725F.3dat252—53.Thepartiesdisputetheextenttowhichacourt,inconductingthe“hardlook”requiredbyRule23,shouldassessPUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED8thereliabilityofcommonevidence.Specifically,theycontestwhetherRule23requiresreliabilityaboveandbeyondwhatisnecessarytoestablishtheadmissibilityofexperttestimonyunderFederalRuleofEvidence702andDaubertv.MerrellDowPharmaceuticals,Inc.,509U.S.579(1993).ThatquestionarosebecausethedistrictcourtfoundDr.Rausser’sregressionmodelstobereliableforadmissibilitypurposes,RailfreightII,292F.Supp.3dat54—63;heldthat“reliabilityunderRule23isahigherstandardthanreliabilityunderDaubert,”id.at91;andfoundnopredominancebasedonconcernsthat“undermine[d]thereliabilityofDr.Rausser’sdamagesmodel,”id.at122.Thedefendantsembracethisreasoning;theyarguethatWal-MartandComcastrejectedcertificationbasedonconcernsthatcommonevidencewasunreliable,eventhoughitsadmissibilitywasuncontested.Theplaintiffsdisagree;theycontendthatpredominanceultimatelyturnsonwhethertherelevantevidenceiscommonorindividualized,andtheyreadTysonfoodsasholdingthatacourtmayassessitsreliabilityonlyindecidingadmissibilityorsummaryjudgment.WeneednotresolvethisdisputebecauseDr.Rausser’sdamagesmodel,evenifsufficientlyreliable,doesnotproveclasswideinjury.Asthedistrictcourtexplained,hismodelindicatesthattheproposedclassconsistsof16,065shippers.RailfreightII,292F.$upp.3dat136.Theplaintiffsmaintainthattheallegedconspiracyinjuredeveryoneofthem.Yetthedamagesmodelalsoindicatesthat2,037membersoftheproposedclass—or12.7percent—suffered“onlynegativeovercharges”andthusnoinjuryfromanyconspiracy.Id.at137.Soevenassumingthemodelcanreliablyshowinjuryandcausationfor87.3percentoftheclass,thatstillleavestheplaintiffswithnocommonproofofthoseessentialelementsofliabilityfortheremaining12.7percent.Thedistrictcourtheldthattheneedfor“individualizedinquiriestodeterminewhichofatleast2,037(andpossiblymore)classmemberswerePUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED9actuallyinjuredbytheallegedconspiracy,”Id.at140,precludedafindingofpredominance.Id.at122.Wereviewadistrictcourt’sassessmentofpredominanceonlyforabuseofdiscretion.Garciav.Johanns,444F.3d625,631(D.C.Cir.2006).Here,wefindnosuchabuse.Theplaintiffsarguethattheirmodelmeasuresthesenegativedamagesonlybecauseofnormalpredictionerror.Thedistrictcourtfoundthatpredictionerrorcouldnot“accountforall—orevenasubstantialportionof—the2,037shippersthatthemodelshowstobeuninjured.”RailFreightII,292F.Supp.3dat139.Theplaintiffstakeissuewiththatfinding,butitisnotclearlyerroneous.Inanyevent,theplaintiffs’argumentaboutpredictionerroratmostsuggeststhattheirdamagesmodelmightfalselyhavemeasurednoinjuryforasmanyas2,037shippers.Thislineofreasoningdescribesapossibleproblemwiththeirownevidence;itdoesnotpointtoaffirmativeevidence—muchlesscommonaffirmativeevidence—thataconspiracydidinfactinjuretheseshippers.Theplaintiffsfurtherarguethatpredominancedoesnotrequirecommonevidenceextendingtoallclassmembers.ThatcontentionappearsinconsistentwithourstatementinRailfreightIthattheplaintiffs,toestablishpredominance,must“showthattheycanprove,throughcommonevidence,thatallclassmemberswereinfactinjuredbytheallegedconspiracy.”725F.3dat252;seealsoid.(“wedoexpectthecommonevidencetoshowallclassmemberssufferedsomeinjury”).Despitethesestatements,thedistrictcourtheldthatouropiniondidnotrequirecommonevidenceofinjurytoallclassmembers.SeeRailFreightII,292F.Supp.3dat132—34.Instead,itagreedwiththeplaintiffsthatcommonproofcovering“virtuallyall”membersoftheproposedclass,andleavingonlya“deminimis”numberofcasesrequiringindividualizedproofofinjuryandcausation,wouldbeenoughtoshowpredominance.Id.at135.Forthesakeofargument,PUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED10weassumethatthedistrictcourtcorrectlyrecognizedademinimisexceptiontothegeneralrulethat,forclaimsundersection4oftheClaytonAct,causationandinjurymustbe“capableofclasswideresolution,”Wal-Mart,564U.S.at350.Thecourtreasonablyconcludedthatsuchademinimisexceptionwouldnotencompassthiscase.Inassessinghowmanyindividualadjudicationsaretoomany,boththedistrictcourtandthepartiesinvokecasesaddressingthequestionofwhen,ifever,aclassmayincludeconcededlyuninjuredmembers.Strictlyspeaking,thiscasedoesnotpresentthatquestion,fortheplaintiffshereinsistthateachmemberoftheproposedclasswasinjured.Nonetheless,thecitedcasesbearsomesimilaritytothisone:Uninjuredclassmemberscannotprevailonthemerits,sotheirclaimsmustbewinnowedawayaspartoftheliabilitydetermination.Andthatprospectraisesthesamekindofquestionatissuehere—whendoestheneedforindividualizedproofofinjuryandcausationdestroypredominance?See,e.g.,InreAsacolAntitrustLitig.,907F.3d42,51—58(1stCir.2018);InreNexiumAntitrustLitig.,777F.3d9,18—22(1stCir.2015).Theplaintiffscomplainthatthedistrictcourtarbitrarilyimposedasix-percentupperlimitonthepercentageofuninjuredpartieswhomaybeincludedinacertifiedclass.Infact,thecourt’sanalysiswasmorenuanced.Asthecourtexplained,the“fewreporteddecisions”involvinguninjuredclassmembers“suggestthat5%to6%constitutestheouterlimitsofademinimisnumber.”RailFreightll292F.Supp.3dat137.The12.7percentfigureinthiscaseismorethantwicethatapproximateupperboundreflectedinanalogouscaselaw.Moreover,thedistrictcourtconsideredrawnumbersaswellaspercentages:sixpercentofa“classtotalingonlyfifty-five”membersmightbedeminimis,but12.7percentofthisclassyields“2,037uninjuredclassmembers”(accordingtothecommonproof),allofwhomwouldneedindividualizedPUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED11adjudicationsofcausationandinjury.Id.at137—38.Finally,thedistrictcourtstressedthattheplaintiffshaveproposedno“furtherway”—shortoffull-blown,individualtrials—”toreducethisnumberandsegregatetheuninjuredfromthetrulyinjured.”Id.at138.Noneofthiswasanabuseofdiscretion.TheabsenceofanywinnowingmechanismsharplydistinguishesNexiurn,theplaintiffs’bestcase.There,theclassincludedpurchasersofadrugallegedlyshieldedfromcompetitionbytheunlawfulsuppressionofagenericalternative.777F.3dat13—14.Theproblemofuninjuredclassmembersarosebecauseasmallpercentageoftheclass,duetobrandloyalty,wouldhavepurchasedthedrugevenifalessexpensivegenericalternativehadbeenavailable.Id.at19—20.TheFirstCircuitheldthattheuninjuredclassmemberscouldmanageablybewinnowedbyhavingindividualconsumersfileminimal,likelyunrebuttedaffidavittestimonyindicatingwhether,ifgiventhechoice,theywouldhavepurchasedthebrandeddrugoragenericalternative.Id.at20—21.Nexiumdoesnotsupportclasscertificationhere.Foronething,theFirstCircuitsharplylimitedthatdecisioninAsacol.There,theCourtexplainedthatanywinnowingmechanismmustbetruncatedenoughtoensurethatthecommonissuespredominate,yetrobustenoughtopreservethedefendants’SeventhAmendmentanddueprocessrightstocontesteveryelementofliabilityandtopresenteverycolorabledefense.907F.3dat51—54.Moreover,theCourtheldthatNexium’saffidavitmechanismcouldnotsatisfybothconditionswherethedefendantseekstocontestthequestionwhetherindividualclassmemberswouldhaveshiftedfromthebrandeddrugtoalessexpensivegenericalternative.SeeId.Thatwouldrequireindividualtrialsbecausegenuinelycontestedaffidavitsdonotsupportsummaryjudgmentandareinadmissible.Id.Here,thedefendantsintendtocontestwhetheranyofthe2,037shipperssufferedinjuryasaresultofanyconspiracy.AndthequestionPUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED12presentedintheseindividualchallenges—regardingimpactsonshippersofdifferentsizes,shippingdifferentproductsindifferentgeographicmarkets,withdifferenttransportationoptionsanddifferentdegreesofleverage—wouldbefarmorecomplexthanthesingleunitaryquestion(brandedorgeneric?)atissueinNexiumandAsacol.TheplaintiffsalsoinvoketheSupremeCourt’sdiscussionofuninjuredclassmembersinTysonfoods.Thedefendantstheresoughtreviewofthequestionwhetheracertifiedclassmaycontainanyuninjuredmembers.ButtheSupremeCourtreservedthatquestion,1365.Ct.at1049,andthedistrictcourtheredecideditintheplaintiffs’favor,RailFreightII,292F.Supp.3dat133—35.So,thisaspectofTysonfoodsdoesnotadvancetheplaintiffs’appeal.TheSupremeCourtalsoaddressedafurther‘newargument”raisedforthefirsttimeinmeritsbriefing—thatplaintiffsatthecertificationstagemustprovethatallclassmemberswereinjuredorestablishamanageableprocessforcullingoutuninjuredclassmembers.1365.Ct.at1049.TheCourtheldthatthisargumentwas“premature”becausethepartiesdisagreedaboutwhatcullingmechanismsmightbeavailableandthedistrictcourthadnotyetaddressedthequestion.See1365.Ct.at1050.ThisholdingrestedontheinappropriatenessofraisingnewissuesforthefirsttimeinSupremeCourtmeritsbriefing.Seeid.Itdoesnot,astheplaintiffsherecontend,perniitdistrictcourtsconsideringclasscertificationtodeferquestionsaboutthenumberandnatureofanyindividualizedinquiriesthatmightbenecessarytoestablishliability.Tothecontrary,confrontingsuchquestionsispart-and-parcelofthe“hardlook”requiredbyWal-MartandComcast,asrecognizedevenbythosecourtspermittingaclasstoincludesomesmallnumberofconcededlyuninjuredindividuals.See,e.g.,InreAsacol,907F.3dat51—54;InreNexiurn,777F.3dat19—21.PUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED1—,1.)Finally,theplaintiffsarguethatthe2,037classmembersforwhomtheirdamagesmodelshowsnoinjuryareademinimisportionoftheclassbecausetheirshipmentsmakeuplessthanonepercentoftherailroads’overallrevenuefromtheallegedconspiracy.Butrevenueisirrelevanttopredominance,whichlookstowhetherelementssuchascausationandinjurymaybeprovedthroughcommonevidence,nothowmuchthedefendantsbenefitedfromanywrongdoing.VLookingbeyondDr.Rausser’sregressionanalysis,theplaintiffspointtootherevidencethattheysaycanproveinjuryandcausationonaclass-widebasis.InRailfreightI,weconcludedthatDr.Rausser’sanalysiswas“essential”totheplaintiffs’caseforcertification:“Nodamagesmodel,nopredominance,noclasscertification.”725F.3dat253.Thedistrictcourtreachedthesameconclusiononremand,aftercarefulreviewofallthedocumentaryandexpertevidence.Thiswasnotanabuseofdiscretion.Theplaintiffsinvokedocumentaryevidencethatthedefendantsenforcedfuelsurcharges“uniformlyandwithfewexceptions.”RailFreightII,292F.$upp.3dat122;seeid.at103—07.Butimposingfuelsurchargesdoesnotshowinjurycausedbyaconspiracy.Thepartiesvigorouslydisputewhetherhigheroverallpricesduringtheclassperiodwereattributabletocausesbesidesanyconspiracy—suchasthemarkedincreaseinfuelpricesthatoccurredaroundthebeginningoftheclassperiod,seel.A.6592—93.Asthedistrictcourtexplained,Dr.Rausserdesignedhisregressionmodelspreciselytocontrolforthesekindsofpotentialalternativecauses,seeRailFreightII,292F.$upp.3dat101,yethisdamagesmodelshowedthat2,037shipperswereuninjureddespitepayingfuelsurcharges.Theplaintiffs’evidenceofwidespreadfuelsurchargeshelpsexplainwhytheproposedPUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED14classisalargeone,butitneitherprovesthatthe2,037shipperswereinjuredbytheallegedconspiracynorotherwisecompelsafindingofpredominance.Next,theplaintiffsinvoketheexperttestimonyofDr.JamesMcClave,whoarguedthatthe2,037shippersmusthavebeenharmedbytheconspiracy.Dr.McClavereasonedthatbecausetheseshippersmadefewerpurchasesonaverage,andthushadlessbargainingpowerthantherestoftheclass,theymusthavebeenmoresusceptibletoinjury.Moreover,Dr.McClave’sownstudyconcludedthatthedefendants’smallestcustomers—roughlyshipperswhomadeonlyonepurchaseII—collectivelypaidhigherpricesthandidlargershippers.Thisanalysisisnotcommonproofofinjurytothe2,037shippers.Foronething,oftheshippersstudiedbyDr.McClave,onlywereintheclass,andDr.McClavedidnotindicatehowmanyofthemwereincludedamongthe2,037classmembersforwhomDr.Rausser’smodelshowednoinjury.Moreover,evidencethatagroupofone-timeshippersmayhavepaidhigherpricescollectivelydoesnotprovethatall(oralmostall)ofthemwereinjuredindividually.And,asthedistrictcourtexplained,Dr.McClavedidnotattempttoidentifyhowmanyoftheone-timeshippersdidinfactpaymore,letalonewhichofthemwereamongthe2,037.SeeRailFreightII,292F.$upp.3dat139.TheplaintiffsrespondthatDr.McClave’sanalysis,evenifinconclusive,atleastsuggeststhatreducedbargainingpowermadethe2,037shippersmorevulnerabletoanyconspiracy.ThislineofreasoningparallelsonerejectedbytheSupremeCourtinWal-Mart.There,anexpertopinedthatWal-Mart’s“strongcorporateculture”madeit“vulnerabletogenderbias.”564U.S.at354(quotationmarksomitted).TheCourtfoundthisevidenceinsufficienttoprovethatinjurycouldbePUBLICCOPY-SEALEDINFORMATIONDELETED15establishedonaclass-widebasis,becausetheexpertcouldnotsaywhatpercentageofadverseemploymentdecisionswereinfactcausedbybias.Id.TheMcClavestudyissimilarlyincompletebecause,asexplainedabove,itdoesnotattempttoidentifywhichofthesmallshippers,orwhatpercentageofthem,wereinfactharmedbytheallegedconspiracy.VIInAsacol,theFirstCircuitnotedtheabsenceofevenasinglecase“allowing,underRule23,atrialinwhichthousandsofclassmemberstestify.”907F.3dat57—58.ThatCourtdeclinedtocreate“thefirstsuchcase.”Id.Sodowe.Giventheneedinthiscaseforatleast2,037individualdeterminationsofinjuryandcausation,thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingclasscertificationonthegroundthatcommonissuesdonotpredominate.Affirmed