Edwards et al v. National Milk Producers Federation et al
Filing
239
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING. Plaintiffs additional brief due by 6/13/2014. Defendant's response due by 6/25/2014. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Case Management Statement due by 8/8/2014. Case Management Conference set for 8/15/2014 11:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/28/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
No. C 11-04766 JSW
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS
FEDERATION, aka COOPERATIVES
WORKING TOGETHER, et al.,
ORDER REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL BRIEFING
Defendants.
/
15
16
Now before the Court is the motion for class certification filed by Plaintiffs and the
17
Daubert motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert filed by Defendants. In addition to arguing that
18
Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. John Connor, should be excluded, Defendants argue, inter alia, that
19
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that their damages are calculated based on the conduct they are
20
challenging as required by Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013).
21
In Comcast, the Supreme Court held that “[c]alculations need not be exact, ... but at the
22
class certification stage (as at trial), any model supporting a plaintiff’s damages case must be
23
consistent with its liability case, particularly with respect to the alleged anticompetitive effect of
24
the violation.” Comcast, 133 S.Ct. at 1433 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
25
Moreover, “for purposes of Rule 23, courts must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine
26
whether that is so.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
27
28
However, courts since Comcast have clarified that plaintiffs need not prove the merits of
their damages at the class certification stage. Instead, “[t]he Court’s job at this stage is simple:
1
determine whether [plaintiffs have shown] that there is a reasonable method for determining, on
2
a classwide basis, the antitrust impact’s effects on the class members. ... This is a question of
3
methodology, not merit.” In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 5391159,
4
*5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24 2013); see also In re Diamond Foods, Inc. Sec. Litig., 295 F.R.D. 240,
5
252 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“Whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail in proving damages is not
6
necessary to determine at this stage. Instead, the question for class certification is whether
7
plaintiff has met its burden of establishing that damages can be proven on a classwide basis.”);
8
In re High-Tech. Employee Antitrust Litig., 289 F.R.D. 555, 582 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (find that the
9
plaintiffs satisfied their burden by establishing a “plausible method for proving an estimate of
damages” for the proposed class); In re POM Wonderful LLC, 2014 WL 1225184, *2 (C.D. Cal.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
March 25, 2014) (“At class certification, plaintiff must present a likely method for determining
12
class damages ....”) (citation omitted).
13
Dr. Connor calculates the effects of the herd retirement program on a national level and
14
multiplies his total calculation by the percentage of the population of the states in which
15
Plaintiffs are bringing state-law claims. The problem with this method is that Plaintiffs, as
16
indirect purchasers, are not bringing a federal anti-trust claim. They are only bringing state-law
17
claims, and not in every state. Dr. Connor’s calculations include the effects from states that
18
Plaintiffs are not challenging any activity as illegal. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have
19
not yet shown “that their damages stemmed from the defendant’s actions that created the legal
20
liability.” Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Comcast, 133
21
S.Ct. at 1435). It is not clear whether Plaintiffs could modify their method of calculations in
22
order to capture only the effects from the states in which they contend Defendants violated
23
antitrust laws.
24
The Court directs Plaintiffs to file an additional brief to address whether they have a
25
reasonable method for determining, on a classwide basis, the alleged antitrust violations’ impact
26
on class members. Plaintiffs shall file their additional brief by no later than June 13, 2014.
27
Defendants may file a responsive brief by no later than June 25, 2014. Plaintiffs may file a
28
reply by no later than July 3, 2014. The Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing on the
2
1
pending motions for class certification and to exclude Dr. Connor’s testimony to July 25, 2104
2
and the case management conference to August 15, 2014. To the extent Plaintiffs need more
3
time because Dr. Connor needs additional time to revise his methodology and calculations, the
4
Court is amenable to providing a longer continuation. However, Plaintiffs shall be advised that
5
to the extent they submit a revised expert declaration, Defendants will need time to depose Dr.
6
Connor and to consult with their own expert to prepare a response. Plaintiffs shall compensate
7
Defendants for the reasonable costs incurred in preparing their supplemental opposition. If
8
Plaintiffs contemplate that additional time will be needed, they should file a stipulation or
9
request for an extension of time, with proposed deadlines, by no later than June 5, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Dated: May 28, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?