Practice Tip: The Scope of Daubert in Product Liability Class Actions

There, the petitioners are arguing that the plaintiffs' expert's damages model does not have the requisite Daubert “fit” with the plaintiffs' theory of antitrust impact. Nevertheless, the case may answer whether a district court must engage in a full Daubert inquiry before utilizing an expert's testimony at the class certification stage under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Accordingly, the decision could have far-reaching implications for all class actions.

Two recent product liability cases illustrate two different approaches federal circuit courts have taken in applying Daubert to class certification proceedings. The Seventh Circuit in American Honda Motor Company, Inc. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2010), held that trial courts must engage in a “full Daubert” inquiry and rule conclusively on whether the expert testimony would be admissible at trial before using the testimony to decide class certification. The Eighth Circuit, on the other hand, in In re: Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2011), held that district courts may engage in a more limited, or “focused” Daubert analysis when analyzing the reliability of expert testimony in the context of the criteria for class certification. This article examines the two decisions and explains the difference between a “full” and a “focused” Daubert inquiry.