Antitrust matters are rarely isolated within a single state or federal agency or jurisdiction. We represent clients facing multi-dimensional antitrust challenges on the transactional, regulatory and litigation fronts, mobilizing an unmatched combination of courtroom excellence, government experience and legal, economic and academic prowess on our clients’ behalf.
April 13, 2015 download PDF
On April 8, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit issued an opinion vacating class certification in an
antitrust case and holding that when a plaintiff relies on expert
testimony to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, that testimony is subject to scrutiny under the
standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
In In re: Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-4067, the Third Circuit considered the standards that apply to an expert methodology put forward to support class certification. The Third Circuit previously had permitted use of expert evidence at the class certification stage if that evidence could later "evolve" into an admissible form, but the court held that this relatively lenient standard had been overturned by the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013)). Slip Op. at 7-8. The court next held that the expert testimony may not be used to satisfy the class certification requirement of Rule 23 unless the district court finds "that the expert testimony satisfies the standard set out in Daubert." Id. at 8. In so holding, the Third Circuit joined three other circuit courts which have recently held that the Daubert standards must be taken into account in analyzing certain expert testimony at the class certification stage. This holding affirms the viability of Daubert challenges as a tactic in attacking class certification.
In re Blood Reagents concerned a putative class action
by direct purchasers of "traditional blood reagents": products used
to test blood compatibility between donors and recipients.
Plaintiffs claimed that defendant Immucor, Inc. and
defendant-appellant Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. ("Ortho"),
which together controlled the products' entire domestic supply,
conspired to fix prices over a period of more than eight
years. Slip Op. at 4. Plaintiffs sought to certify a
class of all individuals and entities who purchased traditional
blood reagents in the United States directly from the
defendants. Id. at 4-5.
Ortho opposed class certification, arguing that plaintiffs had failed to establish predominance under Rule 23(b). For their class certification motion, plaintiffs relied on an expert opinion for "their antitrust impact analyses and damages models." Id. at 5. Ortho argued, among other things, that plaintiffs' expert (1) was not capable of producing "just and reasonable damage estimates at trial" and that (2) the expert, by failing to distinguish lawful from unlawful price increases, had failed to show the necessary class-wide antitrust impact of the conduct. Id. at 6 & n.4. The district court rejected these challenges, and certified the class. Applying then-controlling Third Circuit authority, the district court held that it was premature to consider objections on the merits to the reliability of the expert's damages model as the model could "evolve" over time to become admissible evidence. See id. at 5; In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig., 283 F.R.D. 222, 240-244 (E.D. Pa. 2012).
The Court of Appeals Opinion
The Third Circuit vacated the order granting class
certification. The Court first held that, under the Supreme
Court's decision in Comcast v. Behrend, the
"could evolve" test was no longer good law. Slip Op. at
7. Based in part on the reasoning of Comcast, the
Court then held that, in order to rely on expert testimony to
achieve class certification, a plaintiff must "demonstrate, and
the trial court find, that the expert testimony satisfies the
standard set out in Daubert." Id. at
8. The Daubert standard is the standard used by
federal courts to determine whether an expert's proposed testimony
is admissible at trial. The Court held that this rule was
necessary because a party seeking class certification must "prove"
that the relevant requirements of Rule 23 are met and that
"[e]xpert testimony that is insufficiently reliable to satisfy the
Daubert standard cannot" provide the necessary
proof. Id. at 9 (quotation omitted).
The Court did clarify, however, that the Daubert inquiry was required only for expert testimony "offered to prove satisfaction of Rule 23's requirements." Id. at 10 n.8. It thus remanded to the district court to determine which of Ortho's objections "challenge those aspects of plaintiffs' expert testimony offered to satisfy Rule 23" as well as to conduct a Daubert analysis if necessary. Id. at 11. The Court also reiterated that, even if the evidence in question satisfies a Daubert analysis, the district court is still required to assess the persuasive force of the evidence to determine if the requirements of Rule 23 have in fact been met. See id. at 11 & n.10 (discussing and quoting In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 323 (3d Cir. 2008)).
Significance of the Decision
The Third Circuit has now joined the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth
Circuits in requiring that district courts take Daubert
into account when assessing expert testimony at the class
The Third Circuit's decision is not limited to antitrust class actions. However, because expert testimony often plays a significant role in such actions - including at class certification - the decision may have an especially significant impact on class certification proceedings in antitrust cases.
The Third Circuit's previous rule permitted certification of antitrust (and other) classes based on expert testimony of potentially dubious reliability as long as the plaintiffs could demonstrate that the testimony "could evolve" into reliable evidence. The Third Circuit's newly-announced rule now explicitly allows defendants to mount an early, full-scale attack on the reliability of expert testimony proffered in support of class certification. This rule is likely to make class certification more challenging for plaintiffs in antitrust cases and other actions in which plaintiffs rely on expert testimony to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.
 Immucor, Inc. settled at an earlier stage in the action.
 As the district court opinion makes clear, the damages model was one of the factors it considered in determining whether class-wide antitrust impact had been sufficiently established for class certification. 283 F.R.D. at 239-240.
 See In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 644 F. 3d 604, 613-14 (8th Cir. 2011); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 972, 982 (9th Cir. 2011); Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813, 815-16 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Local 703 IB of T Grocery & Food Emps. Welfare Fund v. Regions Fin. Corp., 762 F.3d 1248, 1258 n.7 (11th Cir. 2014) (dicta).