Defendants are increasingly utilizing challenges to the admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert evidence under Rule 702 and Daubert to defeat class certification. The vast majority of courts considering such challenges have conducted a full Daubert analysis to assess the reliability and relevance of plaintiffs’ proffered expert opinions. While a minority of courts have held that a full Daubert inquiry is not always appropriate at the class certification stage, many of these courts nonetheless have held that some form of Daubert analysis is required.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest’s well-publicized decision denying class certification in IBEW Local Pension Fund v. Deutsche Bank AG1 is only the latest in a string of decisions by the federal courts requiring rigorous proof of the reliability of expert testimony before litigation may proceed as a class. Given the strong trend toward a rigorous analysis of expert opinion testimony of the class certification stage, more such decisions are likely in the future.

A Natural Application of Rule 702, ‘Daubert’

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]