Source: https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/fpmd/chapter7/section3-part1
Timestamp: 2019-10-23 23:50:42
Document Index: 218002516

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 30', '§ 21', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 1796', '§ 1767', '§ 21']

7.3 Defining and Managing a Class (part one) | Shriver Center on Poverty Law
If precertification discovery is granted, it should aim to give an “informed judicial assessment” of the class certification issue even if such facts overlap with the merits of the case.19 With respect to discovery of defendants, discovery is generally limited to facts relevant to the Rule 23(a) and (b) criteria. Mindful of the requirement that a certification decision should be made "at an early practicable time," courts may limit precertification discovery to that which can be done promptly and with a high probability of relevance. 20
1. See, e.g., Hnot v. Willis Group Holdings, 241 F.R.D. 204, 207-08 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (reconsideration of class certification orders justified by intervening events); Conant v. McCaffrey, 172 F.R.D. 681, 693-94 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (class redefined by court and recognizing that court can redefine the class at any point in the litigation).
2. See, e.g., Smilow v. Sw. Bell Mobile Sys., Inc., 323 F.3d 32, 39-40 (1st Cir. 2003).
3. See Chapter 8.1 of this MANUAL for a discussion of the Eleventh Amendment.
4. Future class members are commonly included, especially when conditions continue to harm individuals coming into the class, if the offending behavior may continue after current class members’ claims are resolved. See, e.g. J.D. v. Nagin, 255 F.R.D. 406, 414 (E.D. La. 2009); Reynolds v. Giuliani, 118 F. Supp. 2d. 352, 388-89 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). See also Armstead v. Coler, 914 F.2d 1464, 1465 (11th Cir. 1990).
5. For example, see Martin v. Reed, 818 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 2016) (approving certification of nationwide class settlement); Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 212 F.R.D. 518, 523 (M.D. Tenn. 2002) (defining a class of “all African American consumers who obtained vehicle financing from NMAC in the United States pursuant to NMAC’s ‘retail plan—without recourse’ between January 1, 1990, and the date of judgment"). The classic case for nationwide classes was Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979), which specifically approved the concept.
6. See Kline v. Sec. Guards Inc., 196 F.R.D. 261, 265-69 (E.D. Pa. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 386 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2004), for an example of plaintiffs struggling to define a class that does not require the court to reach the merits to determine whether a putative class member is covered in the class definition (plaintiffs’ class definition of “all persons whose communications were intercepted by electronic surveillance” was found unacceptable since definition would require “minihearings” on whether interceptions had occurred and whose communications were actually intercepted).
8. DL v. District of Columbia, 450 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2006) (class challenging municipality's failure to provide free and appropriate public education because of breach of "child find" duty need not exhaust administrative remedies); 237 F.R.D. 319, 323 (D.D.C. 2006) (certifying class over exhaustion defenses), rev'd on other grounds, 713 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 2013); on remand 302 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2013) (certifying four subclasses).
9. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4)(B).
10. See Warren v. Xerox Corporation, No. 01-CV-2909 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004).
11. Compare Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) § 30.1 with Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.14. For discussions that emphasize the importance of the pleadings as a basis for certification decisions, see In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1086 (6th Cir. 1996) (decision on certification should be deferred pending discovery if existing record inadequate for determination).
12. See Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982); Roe v. Operation Rescue, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 500, 502 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (denying class discovery and certifying class as court need only inquire into facts as presented in pleadings and affidavits if documents sufficiently indicate requirements met).
13. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 365-67 (4th Cir. 2004).
14. See, e.g., Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009); Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300, 1309-11 (11th Cir. 2008). Consult your local rules of court, which may offer guidance or impose requirements on pre-certification discovery and the process for obtaining it.
15. Campbell v. A.C. Petersen Farms, Inc., 69 F.R.D. 457 (D. Conn. 1975) (employment discrimination (class discovery unnecessary when pleadings and affidavits present sufficient facts on contested numerousness issue).
16. 3 William Rubenstein, Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 7:8 (4th ed. 2002 & June 2010 Supp.).
17. In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 41 (2d Cir. 2006). For a general discussion of evidentiary hearings, see 3 Rubenstein, Conte & Newberg, supra note 16, § 7:9. See also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth), supra note 11, § 21.21 (evidentiary hearing “may be” but not “is” necessary in challenge to factual basis for class certification);
18. See, e.g., Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Communications, 435 F.3d 219, 234 (2d Cir. 2006); Lienhart v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 255 F.3d 138, 146 (4th Cir. 2001).
19. Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth), supra note 11, § 21.14. See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1) advisory committee’s notes, 2003 amends.
21. Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth), supra note 11, § 21.14.
22. See West v. Circle K Stores, Inc., No. CIV. S-04-0438, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25164, at *2; 2006 WL 1652598 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2006) (pre-certification discovery may be limited to particular subclass); Transamerican Ref. Corp. v. Dravo Corp., 139 F.R.D. 619, 621-22 (S.D. Tex. 1991) (limiting discovery to fifty of 6,000 absent class members).
23. Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth), supra note 11, § 21.14.
24. See, e.g., Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 187 (D.C. Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 (1978); Barham v. Ramsey, 246 F.R.D. 60 (D.D.C. 2007); Bell v. Woodward Governor Co., No. 03 CIV. S-04-0438, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26757; 2005 WL 3299179 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2005); Mehl v. Canadian Pac. Ry., 216 F.R.D. 627, 631 (D.N.D. 2003).
25. 7B Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (3d ed. 2005 & Supp. 2010) § 1796.1, at 57; In re Carbon Dioxide Industry Antitrust Litigation,155 F.R.D. 209 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
26. See, e.g., Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, No. 08-2063 (D. Kan. Oct. 6, 2009); Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings Inc., 185 F.R.D. 313 (D. Colo. 1999) (allowing discovery of absent class members in form of clear, good-faith questionnaire relating to damages and alleged reliance); Transamerican Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp., 139 F.R.D. 619 (S. D. Tex 1991) (discovery by interrogatories and request for documents generally allowed when relevant to common questions, posed in good faith, not unduly burdensome, and information not available to class representatives).
27. See Boynton v. Headwaters, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94949, at *3–4, 2009 WL 3103161, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 30, 2009); Collins v. Int’l Dairy Queen, 190 F.R.D. 629, 630-31 (M.D. Ga. 1999) (citing Clark v. Universal Builders, 501 F.2d 324 (7th Cir. 1974)).
28. Sibley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *6–7, 2009 WL 3244696 at *2; McCarthy v. Paine Webber Group, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 309, 313 (D. Conn. 1995); See also Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1986) (requiring special circumstances and good cause be shown).
29. Ferraro v. General Motors Corp., 105 F.R.D. 429, 432 (D.N.J. 1984).
30. See Brink v. First Credit Res., 185 F.R.D. 567, 571 (D. Ariz. 1999) (plaintiff’s financial commitment sufficient where he avers his willingness to pay his pro rata share of litigation expenses); Waldman v. Electrospace Corp., 68 F.R.D. 281 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); 7A Wright et al., supra note 25, § 1767, at 381-88.
31. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 356 (1978). See also Sollenbarger v. Mountain State Tel. and Tel. Co., 121 F.R.D. 417 (D.N.M. 1988) (where cost of alternative method “drastic,” plaintiffs could notify potential class members via insert in monthly bills sent by defendant).
32. See, e.g., Randleman v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, 646 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011); Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth), supra note 11, § 21.141.
33. See, e.g., Connor v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 11-888, 2013 WL 5977361 (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2013) (granting motion to bifurcate as consistent with fairness, efficiency, and economy); In re SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., Securities Litigation, No. 08-MD-1989 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 21, 2010) (denying motion to bifurcate class and merit discovery because facts and issues were inextricably intertwined); In re Hamilton Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 01CV0156 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2002) (directing development of discovery plan that prioritizes class-related discovery but does not deprive parties of merits discovery).
34. See Connor, No. 11-888, 2013 WL 5977361; SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., Securities Litigation, No. 08-MD-1989.