Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
8ComcastContinuedfromPage5TheCourtsopinionthoughdidnotactuallyruleontheadmissibilityissueapointcriticizedin-tenselybythedissent.Insteadtheopinionad-dressedwhetherapartyseekingtomaintainaclassactionmustsatisfyRule23srequirementsthroughevidentiaryproofevenwheresuchanaly-sismayoverlapwiththemeritsoftheunderlyingclaim.6TheBehrendmajorityconcludedthatbe-causethedamagesmodelfashionedbytheplain-tiffsexpertfailedtoestablishthatdamagescouldbemeasuredonaclass-widebasistheplaintiffshadnotsatisfiedtherequirementthatcommonis-suespredominateoverindividualissuesofpar-ticularclassmembers.Accordinglycertificationoftheclasswasimproper.Byreachingthiscon-clusiontheBehrendmajoritydidnotresolvethebroaderquestionofwhethertheDaubertstandardforadmissibilityofexperttestimonyappliesattheclasscertificationstage.BackgroundFactsandProceduralHistoryTheplaintiffsinBehrendbroughtanantitrustsuitallegingthatthedefendantcablecompanyat-temptedtomonopolizethecablemarketinPhila-delphiathroughaseriesofswaptransactionswithcableprovidersinothermarkets.7Theputa-tiveplaintiffsproposedfourdifferenttheoriesofantitrustimpactintheirmotionforclasscertifica-tioneachofwhichallegedlyincreasedcablesub-scriptionpricesinthePhiladelphiaarea.8Toestablishclass-widedamagestheplaintiffsre-liedonaregressionmodelthatcomparedactualcablepricesinPhiladelphia-areacountiestopricesincontrolcountieswithgreatercompetition.9Theplaintiffsmodeldidnotisolatedamagesresult-ingfromanyonetheoryofantitrustimpactbutinsteadmeasuredallfourultimatelyconcludingthatthetwomillionpotentialclassmembershadbeenharmedinexcessof875000000.10Thedistrictcourtcertifiedthetwo-million-memberclassunderRule23b3ononlyoneofthefourtheoriesbutrejectedtheremainingthreebecausetheywereincapableofclass-wideproof.11OnappealtheThirdCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourtsdecisioninitsentirety.12CitingtheDukesopiniontheThirdCircuitnotedthatalthoughdis-trictcourtsmustengageinarigorousanalysisatthecertificationstagetheymaynotengageinameritsinquiryforanyotherpretrialpurpose.13TheappellatecourtconcludedthattheBehrendplain-tiffssatisfiedtherequirementsofRule23simplybyprovidingamethodtomeasureandquantifydamagesonaclass-widebasis.14IntheThirdCircuitsviewitwasunnecessarytodecidewhethertheexpertsmethodologywasajustandreasonableinferenceorspeculative.15AccordinglytheThirdCircuitfocusedonwhethertheplaintiffscouldestablishtheelementsoftheirclaimattrialthroughproofcommontotheclass.WithrespecttotheissueofdamagestheThirdCircuitfoundthattheplaintiffshadestablishedthroughtheirexpertwitnessesthattherewasamethodbywhichdamagescouldbemeasuredonaclass-widebasis.ThemajoritystatedinafootnotethatdistrictcourtsneednotapplyDauberttoex-pertsatthecertificationstagewheretheanalysiswouldturnclasscertificationintoamini-trial.16Comcastagainappealed.TheSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorariontheques-tionofwhetheradistrictcourtmaycertifyaclassactionwithoutresolvingwhethertheplaintiffclasshadintroducedadmissibleevidenceincludingex-perttestimonytoshowthatthecaseissusceptibletoawardingdamagesonaclass-widebasis.17SupremeCourtDamagesModelInsufficientforRule23sRequirementsThepartiesdevotedmostoftheirbriefingtotheDaubertissues18whichasitturnedoutwasfornaught.TheBehrendCourtdeclinedtoaddressthoseissuesandinsteadfocusedonthesubstantivequestionofwhethertheplaintiffsexpertsdamag-esmodelwassufficienttodemonstratethatdam-agescouldinfactbedeterminedonaclass-widebasis.WritingforthemajorityJusticeScaliaempha-ContinuedonPage13